Você está na página 1de 161

DAVID ASHURST

STUDIA ISLANDICA

fs]cnsk fnedi 61. hcfti

The Ethics of Empire

in the Saga of Alexander the Great

A study based on MS AM 519a 4to

RifsfjrJri

Asofs EGILSDOTTIR

Reykjavik 2009

BOKMENNTA-

00 LISTFRiEDASTOFNUN HASK6LA iSLANDS

HASK6LAlJTOAFAN

For Joe Driver, sine qua non

'WWfrtXnr't'wmnnnr·· srr·

Contents

CONTENTS ABSTRACT

7 13

...................................................

...................................................

ABBREVIATIONS. . . . . . . .. .. . . ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .... . . . 14

A NOTE ON QUOTATIONS AND TRANSLATIONS 15

PREFACE 17

I INTRODUCTION.......................................... 21

1.1 Aims and Methods 21

1.1.1 The Problem of Interpretation: One . . . . . .. . . .. . 21

1.1.2 Exegetical Aims ········ 23

1.1.3 Ethics and the Ethical.... . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 24

1.1.4 The Feasibility of Literary Criticism. . .. . . . .. .. . 24

1.1.5 Authorship and Historical Relevance............ 26

1.1.6 The Citation of Background Works 27

1.1.7 The Structure of the Study........................ 27

1.2 Views of the Saga and its Source 29

1.1.1 The Problem of Interpretation: Two 29

1.1.2 The Focal Points of Alexanders saga Studies 31

THE CONQUEST OF THE WORLD 38

1.1 Introduction....................................... 38

1.1.1 The Trajectories of Alexander's Career......... 38

1.1.2 The Question of Serious Intent 39

1.2 Overview of the Episode

in which Alexander Achieves World Empire 40

1.2.1 The Context and the Sources · 40

1.2.2 The Capitulation and Alexander's Response... 42

1.2.3 A Connection with Icelandic History........ .... 43

1.3 The Historicity of Alexander's World Empire 45

8

DAVID ASHURST

1.3.1 Some Doubts on the Part of Walter

and his Translator .

1.3.2 Comestor and Veraldar saga .

1.3.3 The Testimony of Scripture .

1.3.4 The Word of Elucidarius ..

1.4 The Roman Rebellion .

1.4.1 The Received Opinion Concerning Roman

Hegemony .

1.4.2 The Treatment of the Subject by Walter

and his Translator .

1.4.3 Consequences for the Presentation

of Alexander's Career. .

1.5 Conclusions .

2 THE ROLES OF FAME AND FORTUNA .

2.1 Introduction " " .

2.2 Frcego .

2.1.2 The Desirability of Fra:g() .

2.2.2 Frcego and Moral Qualities .

2.2.3 Moral Ambivalence .

2.2.4 Frcego and Life after Death .

2.2.5 The Efficacy of Frcego .

2.3 Hamingja '" " .

2.3.1 The Boethian Image of Fortuna .

2.3.2 Corrupting Influence .

2.3.3 Defences against the Blandishments of Fortuna

2.3.4 Valuing Fortuna .

2.3.5 The Relationship of a Man with Fortuna

and Hamingja " . " " .

2.3.6 Trusting to Luck in Latinate Thought .

2.3.7 Trusting to Luck in Non-Latinate Sagas .

~.3.8 Knowing the Limits of Luck .

2.3.9 Misjudging One's Luck .

2.3.10 Luck as an Admired Asset ..

2·3.11 Fortuna Not Supreme ,. " .

. 3.12 Fortuna Subject to Fate .

45 47 48 50 51

51

53

56 57

59 59 60 58 62 64 66 70 72 72 74 75 77

78 81 84 86 89 90 94 94

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

2.3.13 Fortuna Subject to God .

2.4 Conclusions .

3 ARISTOTLE'S COUNSEL ..

3.1 The Nature of the Counsel ..

3.1.1 Introduction: Context of the Advice .

3.1.2 The Purpose of the Advice .

3.2 The Speech .

3.2.1 The Promotion of the Low ..

3.2.2 Spare the Humble, Crush the Proud:

Judgement on Individuals .

3.2.3 Spare the Humble: Judgement on Peoples .

3.2.4 Crush the Proud: Judgement on Peoples .

3.2.5 Another View of the Means to Empire .

3.2.6 The Rhetoric of Courage and Loyalty .

3.2.7 The Division of Booty .

3.2.8 Moderation .

3.2.9 The Process of Law ..

3.2.10 Aristotle's Final Word .

3.3 The Effects of Aristotle's Advice .

3.3.1 Introductory .

3.3.2 The Immediate Effects in the Alexandreis .

3.3.3 The Immediate Effects in the Saga .

3.3.4 The Continuation of the Influence,

According to Walter ..

3.3.5 The Continuation of the Influence,

According to the Saga .

3.4 Conclusions ··········

4 THE MANDATE FOR EMPIRE .

4.1 A Negative View of Alexander's Career .

4.2 Evidence of Literary Borrowing

from Alexanders saga to Njals saga .

4.2.1 The Occurrence of the Phrase 'Pale Cornfields' 4.2.2 The Range of Ready-to-Hand Substitutions ... 4.2.3 Changes to the Passage Mentioning

the Cornfields .

9

96 99

101 101 101 103 104 104

107 110 113 118 119 123 127 129 131 132 132 133 134

135

138 141

144 144

145 145 147

149

10

DAVID ASHURST

4.2.4 The Supposed Parallel between Gunnarr and Alexander in Connection with the Pale Cornfields

..........................................

4.3 4.3.1 4.3.2 4.3.3

4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.4 4.5 4.6

The Episode on the Hilltop .

Claiming Asia While Giving Greece Away .

The Urgent Desire for Vengeance .

Review of the Literary Preparation

for the Hilltop Epsiode .

The Shining Visitant .

The Circumstances of the Visit .

The Divine Promise

The Authentication of·th~· S~~~~·::::::::::::::::::

The Literary Purposes of the Episode .

Bearings .

Conclusions

.......................................

5 THE MANIFOLD LIFE OF LUST

5.1 Babylon the Great .

5.1.1 Introduction .

5.1.2 Overview of th~ ·~~b;i~·~i~~ E~i·~~d~···:::::::::

~.~ 1 Walter s Notes of Censure .

.. The Prophecy of Daniel

5.2.2 A Moral Condition for W~~id E~~;~~···:::::::::

5.2.3 A Recapitulation

5 2 .

. .4 Sexual Mores

5.3 The Old Norse ·~r~~~i~;~~·,; ·~~~dii,~~ .~j .

the Censure

5.3.1 Perfection in E~~~; ·R~~~~~~·······················

5.3.2 The Loss of Righteousness .

5.4 The Comments after the ~a~~i~·;;; ~~~~~ .

5.4.1 AI der ' ' .

exan er s Treatment of the Persian Queens

5.4.2 Alexander's Killing of his Men .

5.4.3 Growing Tired of Human Nature

5.5 Conclusions .

.......................................

150 152 152 154

156 157 157 158 160 162 164 166

168 168 168 170 172 172 175 177 179

181 181 184 187 187 190 194 199

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

6 THE VOICE OF FREEDOM 202

6.1 An Icelandic Voice? 202

6.1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 202 6.1.2 Parallels with Iceland.. . . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . .. . . . . . 203 6.2 The Scythian's Speech:A Study in Multiple Ironies 205 6.2.1 Preliminary: The Speech as Ironic Pre-echo ... 205 6.2.2 The First Insults.................................... 206

6.2.3 A Misdirected Warning 209

6.2.4 Scythian Innocence . . .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 210

6.2.5 Overstepping the Mark 210

6.2.6 Benefits of Poverty................................. 213

6.2.7 Jibing at Good Fortune 214

6.2.8 The Claim to Godhead 215

6.2.9 The Offer of Friendship........................... 217

6.3 A Message to Kings 219

6.4 Conclusions....................................... 221

7 THE WORLD AND BEYOND .

7.1 Introduction .

7.2 This World .

7.2.1 The Spherical Shape of the Earth .

7.2.2 The Map of the World .

7.2.3 The Southern Hemisphere .

7.3 The Places of the Dead .

7.3.1 Paradise and the Angel of Fire .

7.3.2 Hel and Helviti .

7.3.3 The Underworld .

7.3.4 The Non-Christian World Above .

7.3.5 The Bridge to Paradise .

7.4 Turning to the Beyond .

7.4.1 After Conquering the World .

7.4.2 The Next World and the Other World .

7.4.3 The First Mention of the Plan .

7.4.4 Crossing the Boundary .

7.5 Conclusions .

11

224 224 225 225 228 231 233 233 236 237 238 239 241 241 244 246 248 250

8 THE MORALS OF DEATH

..............................

8.1 Introduction: The Ready-to-Hand

Interpretations of Alexander's Death .

The Mythological Episode.

One: Sources, Persons, Setting ..

Sources and Parallels

..............................

The Nature of Natura

..............................

The Prince of Darkness

...........................

The Setting in Hell .

Reticence about Names

...........................

The Mythological Episode.

Two: The Conspiracy ..

The Complaint of Natura ..

The Prophecy of the Harrowing of Hell .

Treason .

Conclusions to the Mythological Episode .

The Closing Sequence .

Introductory

Lead-in to Wal't~;;~ 'C'~~~~~'t~""""""""""

Walter's Two Speeches ...... : .. ::::::::::::::::::

Preparation for the Final Scene .

The Setting of the Death Scene ..

Alexander's Death Speech ..

The Succession, and Death .

A Short Sermon

The Destination ~f'Ai~~'~~d~~:~' s~~i::::::::::::

Conclusions

.......................................

12

8.2

8.2.1 8.2.2 8.2.3 8.2.4 8.2.5 8.3

8.3.1 8.3.2 8.3.3 8.3.4 8.4 8.4.1 8.4.2 8.4.3 8.4.4 8.4.5 8.4.6 8.4.7 8.4.8 8.4.9 8.5

DAVID ASIIURST

9 GENERAL CONCLUSIONS

B BIBLIOGRAPHY OF WORKS CITED .

B 1 Primary Sources

B.2 Secondary Material

....................................

.......................................

INDEX

......................................................

253

253

255 255 256 261 263 264

265 265 269 271 271 273 273 274 275 278 280 281 283 284 286 288

291

303 303 310

317

l

Abstract

The book argues that the ethical judgements of Alexanders saga on Alexander the Great's imperial venture are much more positive than has sometimes been suggested, but at the same time are radically ambiguous in ways that have not previously been acknowledged. It examines the ethical issues of the following:

Alexander's accession to universal power; the roles of fame and the goddess Fortuna; the advice given by Aristotle; the effects of Babylonian luxury; the speech of a Scythian spokesman for national liberty; the mythological scene in Hell; and the treatment of Alexander's death. Two episodes are indicated as the narrative's most important cruces, from which stem much of the work's ethical complexity and ambiguity. The first of these is the visitation in which Alexander receives God's promise of hegemony over all peoples: the terms of the promise validate the imperial enterprise and also introduce the important themes of Alexander as a pagan forerunner of Christ (hence also as a potential Antichrist) and of Christian men. At the same time the promise sets up the context for the second crux, which is Alexander's decision to attack 'the other world', a term that is used ambiguously to mean either the southern hemisphere, where people included in the divine promise mayor may not exist, or Hell. The ethical ramifications of these possible meanings are examined, according to which Alexander may be seen as a transgressor or man of faith, as a type of Christ or of Antichrist, as a sinner whose greed can never be satisfied or a precursor of the Christian who must never rest content with this world; and it is concluded that the multivalent ethical vision thus provided by the saga is a response to the fact that Alexander was a pagan and yet was so very great.

57

at; ;)) mWImwmf •• te;-m"fff.",!xtmriff1f'''iWSIW.tWr ."'lIifil;)tilit!lriil'''1)1~iC'))ii)·'lhlit1t:I'WiIi')))lIlIltIlilZti"tllttrlfl'tillitlflnlltl"17!!1II!711117.7.' _

A Note on Quotations and Translations

Abbreviations

The norms adopted here with regard to quotations, references, capital letters and translations are as set out below.

In the analysis of Alexanders saga and the Alexandreis, at certain points where the importance or complexity of a passage seemed to require it, the Latin and Old Norse texts are given equal treatment, usually beginning with quotation and discussion of the Latin and then moving on to the Old Norse adaptation. Otherwise the saga text, which is the main object of study here, is foregrounded and the Latin is quoted only when the differences between it and the corresponding saga version are significant for the argument. When the Old Norse text alone is quoted but a corresponding Latin passage exists, the page and line references for the saga are given, followed by the line references for the epic; but this should not be taken to imply that the Old Norse passage is an exact rendering of the Latin, which is rarely the case. If the saga text is especially different from the Latin (but not in ways that are significant for the argument) the fact is noted as part of the reference. Where the focus is primarily on the Latin, the order of the references is reversed.

All quotations follow the spellings of the editions from which they are taken. Old Norse words are normalised only when they appear as short phrases, but not as quotations, embedded in the English prose; so, for example, the phrase annarr heimrinn is referred to in sentences that discuss the concept of 'the other world', whereas it may occur as annan heimrenn in quotations. Similarly the Classical spellings of Latin words are adopted when they are discussed in isolation, but the medieval spellings are preserved when quoting.

Where Old Norse quotations are taken from editions that do not use modem punctuation, the capitalisation as it appears in

Abbreviations are also listed alphabetically in the Bibliography.

Als = Alexandreis = Walter of Chatillon (1978).

AM 519a = Alexanders saga: The Arna-Magna:an Manuscript 519a, 4to

(1966).

AS = Alexanders saga (1925). AV = Holy Bible (1611).

BS = Biblin sacra iuxta vulgatam Clementinam (1999). Curt. = Curtius (1946).

CV = Cleasby, Richard, and Gudbrand Vigfusson (1957). Duff = Lucan (1928).

Fairclough = Virgil (1935).

Fritz. = Fritzner, Johan (1883-96).

11 = Historia Alexandri Magni (Historia de preliis) Rezension Jf (1979). 12 = Historia Alexandri Magni (Historia de preliis) Rezension J2 (Orosius-

Rezension) (1976-77).

13 = Die Historia de preliis Alexanders Magni. Rezension j1 (1975). LS = Lewis, CharIton T. and Charles Short (1879).

MSE = Medieval Scandinavia: An Encyclopedia (1993)

OLD = Oxford Latin Dictionary (1968).

O~P = Ordbog over det norr¢ne prosaprog (1989-) Prit. = Walter of Chfitillon (1986).

Rolfe = Curt.

Tester = Consolation of Philosophy (Boethius 1973). Zacher Epitome = iau Valerii Epitome (1867)

r-----------sIlElIs_r.zIlF.sl"7.·5 ..... I"I'.-SIMI'II" 'tili"llilMlffllfl'TiIIi'lltltlnil'rIlWIiI'ffl"Itilt'IIltiiti'I"%i' •• Wzilrlrtl'TIWlmiltllilil.' '1"'lmI1Ielt'I"11 liS. lilli' II.' ---------------------..

16

DAVID ASHURST

the cited text is preserved; hence many quotations begin with a lower-case letter. Where the quotations are from editions using modern punctuation, however, the normal convention of starting the quotation with a capital letter is followed, irrespective of how the passage appears in the cited edition. Latin quotations, as regards the use of capital letters at the start of sentences or verses, follow the conventions used in each edition cited. When just a few words that run across a line break in Latin verse are quoted, the break is shown by a vertical stroke ( I ) even if the initial letter of the new line is capitalised; this avoids confusion in cases where the initial position is occupied by a proper noun.

The words 'Heaven' and 'Hel1' are capitalised when they refer to mythological dwelling-places.

Since readers will primarily be specialists in Old Norse but not in Latin, al1 Latin quotations are accompanied by an English version. Un attributed translations are the present author's own, these being, for the most part, short phrases that present no difficulty, To avoid endless controversy over longer or more complex passages, the published translations of professional Latinists have been quoted even though these are often less precise than might be wished. Dissent from the readings of such translations is occasionally noted, where appropriate. Separate page references for translations from Prit. and Walter of Chatillon (1996) are not given since these texts are thoroughly cross-referenced with the line numbers of Als; nor are separate page references given for translations from parallel text editions such as those of the Loeb Classical Library. In the case of quotations from the Bible, the Vulgate (BS) and the Authorised Version (AV) are given wherever this is feasible; even though AV was translated from the original Hebrew and Greek its readings are generally close enough to the Vulgate for the present purposes in the cited texts. Books of the Bible are referred to by their English names as they appear in AV.

Preface

This book represents a version of the doctoral thesis that I wrote at Birkbeck, University of London. Like many others there, I undertook my studies - first a Master of Arts degree and then the PhD - on a part-time and self-funded basis after being out of university life for a long time. I say 'like many others', for although the quality of its research culture means that it nowadays has many a full-time PhD student, Birkbeck retains its identity, originally that of a working men's college, as an institution whose chief role is to provide part-time university education of the highest standard, and at all degree levels, to people who work or keep house or are retired. I am very glad to have belonged to Birkbeck and to have done what I did there: it was a good way, and an excellent place, in which to have spent the middle years of my life.

Of the individuals who guided or assisted me in my studies, and who number many more than can be mentioned here, the first for me to thank must be Alison Finlay, who not only supervised the PhD but had previously been my teacher in Old NorseIcelandic while I was taking the Birkbeck interdisciplinary MA in Medieval Studies. It was a fortunate day for me when Alison invited MA students to audit the yearlong Old Norse module that she had scheduled as part of the undergraduate programme in the School of English, for through this invitation I was given the chance to learn a language in which I had already shown some interest but which I had not studied at length. From that day to the present I have had a mounting debt to Alison for much help of many kinds - not least for the way in which she fulfilled the role

18

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

19

of supervisor with such wisdom, always knowing when to offer advice and when to let be.

Many thanks are due also to Richard North of University College London, who acted as my supervisor for a year while Alison was abroad, and who long before that had become a good friend ever willing to share his great learning and insight. In particular, through his detailed and painstaking criticism of some forty thousands words of my thesis in its first draft, Richard helped me purge my style of mannerisms that would have made the present book much harder to read.

From an early point in my studies I was encouraged to participate in the activities of several groups and organisations that c?ntributed a great deal to my understanding of Old Norse as a field of study. Among these, in addition to the Viking Society for Northern Research and to Orohenglar, the London-based reading group that Alison founded, was the group centred on the Scandinavian Studies Research Seminars at University College Lon~on. At that time the seminars were organised by Richard Perkm~, who later acted as examiner of my thesis. Barely a month mto the first year of my PhD, Richard invited me to give a pap~r at one of the seminars, but since this usually involved speakmg for up to an hour and then being grilled for thirty minutes by the expert audience, I suggested that the invitation might be premature. Richard, however, insisted that the experience would be good for me and would concentrate the mind. This is the place in which to thank Richard for his good advice, as the ?a?er I went on to present, now fully written up and elaborated, IS m fact this book.

In one capacity or another, Alison and the two Richards all read my thesis or drafts of it and offered comments that helped me to correct its flaws. Any errors that remain in this book, however, are my own.

. It remains for me to mention two people of the greatest

Importance to me h· . .

, w 0 contnbuted to this book In ways other

than through expert kId f . ..

now e ge 0 the subject. The first IS Arturo

Almandoz of Sim ' B I' ..

on 0 rvar University, Caracas, who as well as

giving me his emotional support through many years has been able to offer me the professional perspective of a highly productive scholar who works in a field far removed from that of Old Norse. The other - of course - is Joe Driver, my partner for more than thirty years now. Long before I thought of going back to university to take an MA, Joe was there. When I began to consider a PhD, he was there. When at length I was offered my lectureship at Durham (most wonderful of events), he was with me. My biggest debt in every way, and not just for a book, is to him.

Durham University, 2009

Introduction

1.1 Aims and Methods

1.1.1 The Problem of Interpretation: One. In his study of Iceland in the Age of the Sturlungs, Einar 61. Sveinsson (1953, 150) summed up the values of Alexanders saga, and of the literary milieu that he believed had produced it, in the following way:

While they (the Icelandic churchmen) are writing they show the same confidence in man and human values as laymen do. Even Abbot Brandr translates into Icelandic the saga of that mighty heathen champion Alexander the Great - at the instigation of King Magnus Lawmender, to be sure, but can amore; the admiration for the glory of man shines through every sentence.

Einar later modified this view somewhat, as will be discussed below (section 1.2.2), but in the passage just quoted he placed his emphasis on the saga as a document embodying values that are heroic and not especially Christian despite the fact, as he believed it to be, that the work had been written by an outstanding Christian leader and teacher, namely Brandr JOnsson. As Einar saw things, furthermore, these values are presented with respect and enthusiasm within the saga itself, which appears on the whole as an endorsement of Alexander's glorious career - the career of a 'mighty heathen champion' treated 'can amore'.

Lars Lonnroth (1970 and 1976) has taken a very different view. For him Alexanders saga is one of the most notable and characteristic products of what he calls 'the clerical mind', which is to say 'a mind formed by the Christian culture of medieval

22

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

23

Europe' (1976, 105). Far from shining with admiration for the glory of man, Alexanders saga is fundamentally anti-heroic, in ~6nnroth's opinion, and carries a heavy warning against world~mess of every kind, so that even the beautiful landscape that IS to be Alexander's very first conquest must be seen as one of the many things that are 'snares of the devil' (1976, 154). Soon enough Alexander degenerates to the point at which the moral of the tale is plain to see (p. 154): 'Although Alexander becomes a great and famous conqueror, his greed has become so excessive that the eternal powers strike him down.' This is the essence of t~e saga, which as a whole 'is meant as a lesson on virtue and vice' (p. 110).

. It is not unusual for scholars to reach diametrically opposed views of the same saga; but in the case of Alcxanders saga, I suggest, the disagreement that has just been illustrated stems ~rom the paradox of Alexander himself as he was perceived in the Middle Ages. Any medieval writer who approached

the subiect with . .' . .

J serious mtentions was confronted by a radi-

cally probl ti I fi

" ema ica rgure: Alexander achieved more than any

Christian warrior, yet was not a Christian' he was famed for his generosity, mercy and sexual continence but blamed for the very

same liti . .

qua ities or their opposites; and he became the subject of

an adulatory traditi f' .

'" 1 Ion 0 popular literature, but also of a hostile

tradItIOn m philoso h N h' .,

p y. ow ere, as It happens IS this paradox

of Alexander ex I d . h '

P ore WIt greater subtlety or with more com-

plex ambivalence th . h . .'

an In t e Alexandreis, the Latin epic that

Walter of Chatill f

. a I on inished around 1180 or a little earlier, and

of which Al d

exan ers saga, through most of its length, is a close

paraphrase I Ma f h " .

.' ny 0 t e ambiguities of Walter's excellent and

hugely mfluenti I . .

. a poem come through in the saga and thus gIve

nse to the pr bl f '. .

fi do em 0 InterpretatIon that has just been exempli-

re . In the prese t t d h

. n s u y, t erefore, the ethical issues surround-

mg Alexander d hi

. an IS conquests as embodied in the saga are

re-exammed in .

greater detail than has so far been undertaken

I

(see 1.2.2 below), and with greater emphasis on the ambiguities of the text.

1.1.2 Exegetical Aims. The purpose of this book is literary exegesis: to illuminate what is actually there in the text; to break down faulty assumptions concerning the nature, content and message of the text; to examine whether judgements made within the text stand up to the evidence of the rest of the work; and to avoid forcing a unitary interpretation on the work, but nevertheless to investigate whether there is a logic underlying any apparent points of incoherence. These goals are pursued with due regard for the literary forms, conventions and techniques that mediate the significance of the work, and which must be understood if it is to be interpreted at all. Since the text under scrutiny belongs to the Middle Ages, a strong effort is made to check the feasibility of the interpretations arrived at here against the probable ways in which early audiences can reasonably be thought to have perceived the work, based on a knowledge of conceptual background -literary, religious, historical, cosmological etcetera (see 1.1.6). In addition a limited amount of space is devoted here to ways in which some passages may possibly have a significance that is relevant to the historical situation in which the text or its original may have been produced and received (see 1.1.5); the purpose of such discussion, however, is always to elucidate what is in the text, and never to use the text as a means of investigating subjects that are not literature. Finally, the particular text examined here, which is Alexanders saga as represented by MS AM 519 4to, is not analysed in isolation but in close comparison with the Latin source, the Alexandreis, which itself has been subjected to literary critical analysis on the same terms as outlined above, both prior to the study of the saga and concurrently with it.

As mentioned in the previous section, the particular aim in undertaking this literary analysis of Alexanders saga (in the version specified) is to investigate the ethics of empire that the saga embodies. Although there are other aspects of the work that would be worthy of a book-length study, the focus of attention chosen here is entirely appropriate because the saga itself is primarily an

For the dating f th At .

90-96). 0 e exandTels see Prit. (pp. 4-5) and Dionisotti (1990,

24

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

25

l

account of Alexander's career of empire building, and it reveals a deep concern for the ethical issues associated with this career a concern that can b h ' '

, , e seen t roughout the work III every type of

wntlllg th t i , I

a IS me uded - in the many complex speeches in the

comments made in the a th 'I ' , '

, u ona voice, In the ecphrases in the

allegorical and m th I ' I ' '

, y orogica episodes (especially the latter) and

even III the battl '

b ' e scenes, where the behaviour of the main com-

atants IS carefully a d

rrange to show off their virtues and vices

rather than their simpl '

he pUIssance, By centring on the ethical

t erne, therefore the st d ' ,

f h ,u Y IS not essentially distorting the nature

o t e saga,

1.1,3 Ethics and th Eth' I

th " e lea. For the purposes of this study

e words ethical' and ' I'

di , mora are taken to be synonymous

a jectives relatmg t th di

, 1"", 0 e Iscernment of good and evil, whilst

mora IsatlOn slglllfies hi

, an et ical comment or passage of com-

mentary embedded in th '

f he narrative, By 'ethics' is meant the sum

o t e ethical ' d '" ,

sag I . JU gements that are stated or implied within the

a, n practIce there i d iff ,

an ethi I' s no I iculty In distinguishing between

rca Judgement and li .

issue and a po itical one, say, or between a moral

a matter of mann ' , ,

shades into I" ers, even though It IS clear that ethics

po ItICS on one'd d ' ,

F ' , Sl e an into etiquette on another.

rom time to tirne a di ti ' ,

pagan ethi ( , IS mChon IS made between Classical

ICS espeCIally of th S) '" .

or warrior thi e toa, Christian ethics and heroic

e ICS, These are t I '

therefore th no mutua Iy exclusive terms, and

ey cannot be u d' ,

thinking' h se to stratify the layers of ethical

In t e saga' n I

desirable ev if i or wou d such a stratifying analysis be

, en I It were ibl C '

saga's natu N POSSI e, lor It would be alien to the

re. everthel h

employed PI' ess t e terms are serviceable when

ecemeal for th 'II'

I 14Th ' ey can I ummate particular details,

, . e FeasibTt .

reasonably a k h I I Y of Literary Criticism. One may

s Wether a d'

literary critical I' ny me ieval saga is susceptible to

ana ysis of a t hat i ,

given the unc rtai , ype t at Involves close reading,

e amtIes of '

that much Old Norse "manuscnpt transmission and the fact

an act _ stand' wntmg - writing as a product but also as traditions CI s lv a suspected but unknowable relation to oral

. ear y many f th '

o e techniques developed to examine

the writings of a highly self-conscious modem author such as Henry James may be inappropriate as tools for analysing socalled 'primitive' works such as Heioarviga saga; nor do they seem well adapted for use on such a bewildering composite as Romverja saga, even though its antecedents are literary; and it may be doubted to what extent they can be applied even to such an apparently sophisticated work as Njdls saga, Alexanders saga, however, is in a special class in this respect. Walter of Chatillon's Alexandreis can certainly be analysed with as much propriety and in as much detail as are the works of Virgil or Lucan, for it is a highly organised masterpiece, unimpeachably literary, unrivalled among medieval poems in its approximation to Classical epic, the work of a self-conscious and indeed self-advertising artist who was familiar with a vast range of Latin works and was able to adapt them to his own purposes, whether in the overall sweep of his narrative or the detail of his phrasing. Furthermore it presents us with an unusually stable text because of its iconic status as a schoolbook that was to be learned verbatim and because its verbal texture, with masses of interlocked patterning overlaid on an already complex metre, resists corruptions or makes them particularly evident when they do occur. The literary solidity of the Alexandreis is reflected in Alexanders saga, which thus becomes susceptible to literary critical analysis in its tum, for it is possible to compare the two works on a sentenceby-sentence, often clause-by-clause, basis and to see precisely what has been done in adapting the Latin text. Such comparative analysis reveals that the author of Alexanders saga had an excellent grasp of Walter's thought, a few apparent slips in the translation notwithstanding; since the paraphrase is neither slavish nor wayward but consistently discriminating in the way it treats Walter's twists, and frequently impressive in the way it matches his epigrams, it is manifest that the author had studied Walter's poem with great care and knew exactly what he was doing with it. Alexanders saga, in short, is not only a fully literary work that can be analysed as such, but one that is itself the result of a process akin, mutatis mutandis, to literary critical analysis,

26

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

27

l

These claims are not fatally compromised by the fact that we do not possess the original version of Alexanders saga. Even though it is clear that at least one copy stands between MS AM 519a 4to and the original translation (AM 519a xxiv and xxvi) the 519a ve '. '.'

rsion remains a very good representative of the

sa~~ and has the advantage, from the point of view of a literary

critical study of havi . . . .

, avmg a uruty and mtegnty of Its own. All the

com~ents made above concerning the discriminating and astute q~ahty o.f the translation were in fact based on an examination of

this version It is n t f

" .' 0 necessary, or the purposes of this study, to

dlstm~u~sh between the deviations from the Latin text made by the ongma.l translator and those introduced by a later redactor,

for the subject of the di ", .

, issertatron IS what IS actually there in the

text - the text bein AM 519 4

h . g a to. It must be noted, however,

t at In all the followin l di ,

, g ISCUSSlon the phrase Old Norse transla-

tor must be understood as' .h h d f ,

, as ort an for Old Norse translator

or redactor' and th t I .

, a any a teration of the Latin sense attributed

to the translator may 0 I' h

in rea ity ave been made without recourse to Walter's text.

th U.5 Authorship and Historical Relevance. Throughout e study the autho f At

Old N r 0 exanders saga is referred to as 'the

orse translator' or ith .

. WI some such term that preserves his

anonymity and ev ids sri

th en avor s stipulating that he was an Icelander

ra er than a Norweci I .

. . gran, n part this has been done because it

IS not certam that th .

122) M e saga IS the work of Brandr Jonsson (see

" . ore fundamentally h . . . id

maki , owever, It IS essential to avoi

mg assumptions c . 0

or th hi oncernmg the life and views of the author

e Istoflcal conte t 0 h'

them into the . x m w ich he wrote, and then reading

with th ~ext m general, for the concern here is exclusively

e text Itself and th ible i

rally' Ide POSSI e mterpretations that it natu-

me u es. The po ibili .

co '. SSI I tty that King Magnus Hakonarson

mmlsslOned At d '

example' c exan ers saga from Brandr (see 1.2.2), for

, IS ret erred to t l noi

details h a severa pomts where it may relate to

sue as expres . f

significan . h sions 0 respect for kings: here the chief

ce IS t at the s· "

sibility that B d aga IS royahst m tenor, and the pos-

ran r was fl tteri K' ,

a enng mg Magnus merely adds a

nuance; such details are not adduced as evidence that the saga really was a royal commission. Similarly, in connection with the imperial theme, the study is not committed to the view that Alexanders saga has anything specific to say about the adding of Iceland to the Norwegian empire, although it notes that one or two details are suggestive and that the saga was probably written when the Norwegian takeover of Iceland was either a possibility or a fact within living memory; but even this last assumption, broad and safe though it is, has no fundamental place in the treatment of the saga as a whole.

1.1.6 The Citation of Background Works. The focus of this study is very definitely on Alexanders saga and the Alexandreis but other works are quoted, most often in the hope of throwing light on the ways in which early audiences of the saga may have understood certain ideas or expressions. The Bible is quoted copiously since the saga writer and many members of his audience would have had a knowledge of it or of its substance. Where Old Norse versions of biblical books exist, i.e. in Stj6rn and Gyoinga saga, these are quoted; but this must not be taken to imply that they were the versions known. Similarly many people would have known Elucidarius in some form, and the Old Icelandic translation is quoted here. Other works are cited more cautiously with a view to illustrating what may be called 'the community of ideas' in the Old Norse world. It is never suggested in the study that there is a direct relationship between Alexanders saga and these works, or that early audiences of the saga must certainly have known them; the only concern is to show that the interpretations placed on particular passages in Alexanders saga are feasible because they are required in other contexts.

1.1.7 The Structure of the Study. The study is organised around the nodal points of Alexander's career, starting with the climactic moment when hegemony of the entire world is achieved but then returning to the beginning and following the course of the career from first to last. The idea of Alexander's accession to universal power forms the subject of chapter 1 because this is probably the most alien concept in the saga, for

28

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

29

modem readers and b '

. .. .' ecause one s response to the issue of its

credibiluy IS cruci I ~ .

.. ra lor an understandmg of the ethical scheme

embodIed m the work a h I Ch

h saw 0 e. apter 2 further explores this

t eme by considering the.wid .

he WI e-rangmg moral implications of

t e statement that Al der '

b f exan er s world empire was given to him

y arne and luck I h 3

. n c apter the focus moves back to the earli-

est part of the narrar . hi .

thi I rve, in w ich Anstotle gives Alexander the

e ica precepts that

h. . are meant to govern his conduct through-

out t e tmperial ad

Al venture, and attention is paid to whether

exander fulfils th . d· id

t H· e in IVI ual precepts in the later parts of the

s ory. avmg shown th t A . ,

. a nstotle s moral authority backs the

entire career of con h

4 f Al quest, t e study takes up the issue in chapter

, 0 exander's divi d '

ethical s·"f me man ate for world empire; here the

is one o;~~~ Icanc~ of the episode of the Shining Visitant, which Ch t 5 most Important cruces of the saga is investigated.

ap er deals with th '

lapse in Bab I ~ commentary on Alexander's moral col-

of the Battl y fOln and Wlt~ the remarks embedded in the account

eo ssus wh h ..

d I .' IC anticIpate the later commentary· the

eep Y problematIcal n t f '

In chapter 6 th a ure 0 these moralisations is analysed.

Alexander' e sPleech of the Scythian emissary, a stem critic of smora s and ask

is discussed Ch . po esman for the values of freedom,

. apter 7 .

ideas and thei . . mvestIgates the saga's cosmological

elr vItal Import ... .

Alexander's d .. ance to the ethical ramifications of

eCISlon to att k' h

which is on f h ac t e other world', the treatment of

e 0 t e most subtl d

by the Old N e an complex contributions made

orse translato . h·

Analysis of thi h . r m IS adaptation of Walter's poem.

IS t erne IS c tirmed l

by investigating the i . O? mue in chapter 8, which begins

which the pow eflm~lIcatIOns of the mythological episode in ers 0 evil pI t t

then turns to th I. 0 0 cut Alexander down; attention

e mora rsano th

scene itself. ns at preface and follow the death

Each of these chapters .

conclusions (but I h IS followed by a set of summarising

in t e case of h .

between sections 8 3 4 c apter 8 they have been split

written is SUch .. and 8.5). These conclusions have been

a way that th b

sub-chapter in th . . ey can e read consecutively as a

eir own nght I . .

, eavmg It to chapter 9 to offer a

final discussion of the main ethical message, or messages, of the saga as a whole.

1.2 Views oj the Saga and its Source

1.2.1 The Problem of Interpretation: Two, Since the focus of the present study is on Alexanders saga, this is not the place to give a full review of secondary material on the Alexandreis. Enough will be said, however, to indicate that the division of opinion between Einar 61. Sveinsson and Lars Lonnroth (see 1.1.1 above) reflects the disagreements between scholarly readers of the epic.

A position similar to Einar's was adopted by George Cary in his comprehensive survey of medieval Alexander literature. Like Einar in his assessment of the saga, Cary (1956, 173) judged the Alexandreis to be full of admiration for the glories of a warlike hero:

The spell of Alexander's conquests had fallen upon Gautier (i.e. Walter of Chatillon), and he saw in him the ideal of what a warrior should be. The ambition that was reproved in the moralists became in the Alexandreis a necessary adjunct to magnanimity, the incitement to glory that was ever present in Alexander's mind.

Cary goes on, on the same page, to note that the Alexandreis does, however, contain some criticisms of Alexander that Walter took over from his own major source, the History of Alexander by the Roman historian Quintus Curti us; but he also observes, correctly, that whereas Curtius's narrative is full of reproaches for Alexander, Walter suppresses all but a vestige of these. With regard to the mythological episode that brings about Alexander's death, and which Lonnroth (1976, 154; see I. 1.1 above) presents as a matter of being cut down by 'the eternal powers', Cary (p. 173) notes that it is the powers of Hell who plot the killing, and that the death is therefore effected 'without detriment to Alexander's position as an elect of Heaven'. His judgement of the

30

DAVID ASllURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

31

epic as a whole is that 'there is little enough of condemnation here when set beside the poet's unbounded admiration for his hero' (p. 174).

~here is much to recommend Cary's view of the Alexandreis,

but It has the demerit f f '1' . . ..

I 0 at mg to explain why the cntrcisms

taken over from Curtius were included at all. It is implied that

Walter was not in f II If'

u contro 0 hIS source material since he

allowed lumps of f . ...'

oreign matter to remain 111 hIS text. Given that

Walter was a poet f .

o great stature, as IS shown by his lyrics as

well as the epic it' t . .

, IS no surpnsmg that other commentators have

struggled hard to find an interpretation that unifies the ethical

message of the Al d" .

exan rets 111 all ItS parts, including the pas-

sages of conde ti H

th mna Ion. ence Kratz (1980, 61-166) emphasises

e passages that re h AI .

proac exander for hIS immorality and

presents Walter's e . I '

h. . ssentia message as a Christian critique of

erolc values' how .

, ever, smce long stretches of the poem appear

to endorse Alexand "h .

K . er s crorc values quite enthusiastically,

ratz can only give th

d. e poem as a whole this anti-heroic tenor by

rea lIlg a very lar e f i , " ,

of his book (M k~ part.o It as an essay 111 sarcasm, as the title

Meter (1991 ;c mg EpIC) suggests. This is really not viable, as AI der ' 5) agrees. Meter's own view of the poem is that

exan er stands for .

himself' (10) eve~yman who IS mortal and over-reaches

p. , so the praise of hi .

to the" rm can presumably be vahd up

pomt at wbich the .

the analys' f h over-reachmg takes place; unfortunately

IS 0 t e suppo d

because M t . se act of over-reaching is badly flawed

e er takes It for t d h . . .

truth when h . gran e t at Leviathan IS telling the

intends to atte skaYHs, m the mythological episode, that Alexander

ac ell (p 53) 2 C .

David Townsend (W . . ontrary to Meter's contention,

is also advocated in ~~er 1996, xx) puts forward the view, which only voiced a h . present study, that Alexander has in fact

. ope of mvadin th A .

lI1g Hell at all I . g e ntipodes and not of attack-

. nterestll1gly ~ d .,

words as an 'int . ,ownsen construes Leviathan s

erpretJve gaf£ 't ifvi

which he sees di I e ypl ymg the nature of the poem,

as ISP ayi ,

lI1g an uncanny postmodernity' (p. xii)

in that it 'treats among its themes the very processes of reading and interpretation' (p. xx) and trades upon the 'aesthetic of disjunction and juxtaposition' (p. xviii). According to Townsend's postmodernist view of the Alexandreis, which has been further outlined in Townsend's articles of 1992 and 1995 on the poem's diverse voices and disparate frames of reference, there is little point in seeking a single unifying message in the work beyond the significant fact that such a message is absent (Walter 1996, xx):

Inadequate frames of reference are all we are given as readers. There is no Final Say in the Alexandreis. Each of its voices, each of the textual frames it evokes, is crossed by the others, to the point that even its most straightforwardly moralizing asides, which ought to resolve our doubts and to reestablish us in comfortable certitude, become suspect.

See sections 7 4 and 8 3 ~

, . or my own discussion of this complex subject

Townsend's analysis is somewhat overstated, for the present study will show that there is more of an underlying logic to the disparate voices and frames of reference in the Alexandreis than Townsend acknowledges; furthermore it will be seen that the author of Alexanders saga was rather less of a postmodernist precursor than Walter was. Nevertheless Townsend has given elegant expression to a real difficulty of interpretation with respect to the epic, one that feeds through into the saga where it is partially responsible for the difference of opinion between Einar and Lonnroth. It is a difficulty that cannot be resolved by the kinds of brief, generalised, sweeping analyses to which the thinking of the saga has so far been subjected, for it exists in the fine details of the work, and nothing but an extensive study of those details can hope to address it.

I.2.2 The Focal Points of Alexanders saga Studies. The

secondary literature on Alexanders saga, small in quantity and limited in scope, is focused on four topics of interest, of which the most amply represented is the issue of authorship.

The epilogue to Gyoinga saga in the mid-fourteenth-century manuscript AM 226 fo1., which also contains a version of Alex-

32

DAVID ASHURST

anders saga, states that the priest Brandr Jonsson, who was subsequently bishop of Holar, was the author of both sagas, the Alexander translation being made at the behest of King Magnus Hakonarson (Gyoinga saga 1995, xvi and 219); in the same manuscript, the final passage of Alexanders saga itself also names Brandr as the translator (AM 519a, xxvii), but the earliest extant version of the saga, which is contained in AM 519a 4to, a manuscript of the late thirteenth century (AM 519a, xi), preserves the anonymity of the translator, referring to him only as sa er snuet heftr [sqgunniJ isina tungu (AS 1554-5). These passages taken together have occasioned a good deal of controversy centring on whether such apparently different books as Gyainga saga and Alexanders saga could possibly have been the work of the same man, and on whether or not the linguistic forms of Alexanders saga suggest that it must originally have been written by a Norwegian (whereas Brandr was Icelandic). Notable contributions to this debate have been made by Wielding (1951, 40; and 1960), Damsgaard Olsen (1965, 105) and Hallberg (1977) on the one hand, who cast doubt on the ascription in AM 266 fol., and on the other Einar 01. Sveinsson (1961 and 1972, 15-16) and Wolf (1988), who defend its plausibility. It is not necessary to summarise these arguments or to give a critique of them here as the subject is not strictly relevant to this study and as there has been no significant new contribution to the subject since it was fully appraised by WUrth (1996, 291-94; and 1998, 117-18). Adopting a position much the same as that taken by Jon Helgason in 1966 (AM 519a, xxix), WUrth (1996, 294) concludes that there is no compelling reason to reject the at~ribution of Alexanders saga to Brandr. It does not follow from this, however, that the attribution is actually proven _ despite unguarded references to Brandr as the author of the saga, such as those by Svanhildur Oskarsdottir (2000, 149) and WUrth (1998, 181). In this dissertation, as mentioned in section 1.1.5 abo:e, the assumption that Alexanders saga is Brandr's work is avoIded, not only because there remains some room for doubting it but also because it is apt to colour one's interpretation of

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

33

the text, as can be seen, for example, in the quotation from Einar

01. Sveinsson at the start of this Introduction.

A second focal point of interest has been the stylistic character of A lexanders saga. The high quality of the work, at least with regard to the standard of its prose, was recognised at an early date. Ami Magnusson admired its language and style so much that ~e considered making an edition, as we know from a letter that his friend Hans Gram wrote to Johann Albert Fabricius in 1709, on the basis of which Fabricius, in 1712, referred to Alexanders saga as an 'incomparable monument of northern antiquity' (incomparabile antiqvitatis septentrionalis monumentum - AM 519a, xix-xx). In view of this it is surprising that more analysis has not been devoted to the style and language of the saga in their purely literary aspects rather than as means for investigating the issue of authorship.' Apart from Elin Bjamadottir's undergraduate dissertation of 1985 and a few comments in Jon Helgason's introduction to his facsimile edition ofthe saga (AM 519a, xxx-xxxii), the subject of the saga's literary techniques has been addre~sed only by Einar 01. Sveinsson (1972) and WUrth (1996; repnsed 1998, 107-17). Their observations are valuable and would m~ke good points of departure for more extensive studies of the tOpICS that they deal with, but they suffer from the inevitable drawbacks of brevity: they are not deep in their analysis; they can~ot make room for much quotation; they depend on examP.les ~o Ill~str.ate the features under discussion, and are not exhaustive III their listings of those features' occurrences; and they are not able to deal with matters that would require close reading of several passages in comparison with the Latin source. The present study, being concerned with other matters, does nothing to remedy the lack of depth and detail in analyses of the saga's literary techniques; but I shall note here the need for a full study that gives scope not only to the fact that alliteration, rhyme and rhythmic prose exist in the saga but to precisely how and when they are used, and also to the ways in which the many speeches in the Alexandreis are treated

3 See Hallberg (1977), Wolf (1988) and note 4 below.

7 7: rnr"gtt17Wtrttffvsei'

34

DAVID ASHURST

/

in their new context t th ' I" ,

,0 c imp ((.:atIOI1S of the use of allegory

and ecphrases, to the employment or suppression of simile, and

above all (for it is one of th ' " , ,

e Sdgd s most irnpressive features) to

the ways in which the t I' ,

rans ator matches Walter's sententtae.

Following Jon HI'

, e gason s remark to the effect that it would

be difficulr to ima ' I I '

, gme an ce ander m the Sturlung Age translat-

mg the speech of th S hi ,

, e cyt Ian emIssary without feeling it as an

Icelandic t ib '

,con n unon to a current debate (AM 519a, xxviii),

the Scythian epis d ' Al

ooe rn exanders saga has become a third

focus for a certain f '

amount 0 interest amongst scholarly com-

mentators Described' , 6

S,' as a remarquable discours' by Einar I.

vemsson (1972 32) th "

, ' ,e speech, which gives a voice to a proud

mdependent pe I h d '

, op e woo not WIsh to be absorbed into an

empIre, has been dis . d b H

, . cusse Y crrnann Palsson (1992), who

outlmes what he tak . t b '

W.. h es 0 e Its contemporary references and by

urt (1996, 310- II' 1998 I ' ,

h " 12-114) who draws a parallel with

t e speech of the Ice lam 1 , I,', (' " , "

h " ' ucr JII1.trr ~Ylollss()n l-vcncingr against

t e terrItonal designs f K' ()I" '

(S' '. 0 II1g al r IIaraldssol1 in l leimskringla

nom Sturluson 1979 II

deb t (A h ' ,216), My own contribution to this

a e s urst 1997)' " ,

6 b I ' a version of which appears as chapter

e ow, accords ' th h

it I WI t ese treatments of the subject in that

1 exp ores some of th ' ,

seemed I e ways In which the speech could have

re evant to thi rt h

N bur i I eent -century audiences in Iceland or

orway, ut It dIffers f h ' , ,

analysI' f h rom t em by providing extensive close

sot e text a d it

ever po ibl n I s source, by relating the speech wher-

SSI e to the rtf h '

Scyth" , es 0 t e narrative, and by showing that the

Ian s pomt of vi , ,

of 0 t lew IS conSIstently undermined by ironies

ne ype or another,

The fourth focu f' ,

concern f hi s 0 mterest IS the one that is the central

OtIS study na I h '

sages f h - name y t e ethical message, or mes-

,0 t e saga D '. h ' , ,

of the Al " espIte t e mterpretational complexities

exandrels menn d i

tendency lone m 1.2. I above, there has been a

amongst Old N" .

Alex d orse scholars 111 recent decades to view

an ers saga as s h'

a warni . ornet mg that can ultimately be reduced to

ng agamst hub' Of

takes th ns. these scholars it is Lonnroth who

e most extreme . .

PosItIon (exemplified in 1.1.1) accord-

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

35

ing to which the whole saga is structured as a study in moral degeneration beginning at the very moment when Alexander sees the pale cornfields of his new empire for the first time. I have challenged Lonnroth's views, with particular reference to his interpretation of the pale cornfields, in an article (Ashurst 2000b), a version of which appears below as chapter 4; but here I must add that Lonnroth's interpretation of Alexanders saga in general depends on placing very heavy emphasis on a few passages and ignoring the bulk of the saga. Nor are Lonnroth's representations of these passages always accurate: he characterises Aristotle's speech as being essentially about the duty to avoid becoming too proud and ambitious or falling to the temptations of this world (1976, 153), but it is actually about very much more than this, as I show in chapter 3, and could be better characterised as an ethical scheme for building the biggest empire possible; Lonnroth's treatment (1976, 156-57) of Walter's final sermon, furthermore, takes it for granted that Alexander behaves like the foolish man whom Walter condemns for worldliness, whereas the sermon itself specifically applies a different moral to Alexander, as I show in section 8.4.8. Other scholars have disagreed with Lonnroth's interpretations and yet have endorsed the idea that hubris is a leading concept in Alexanders saga: hence Foote (1979, 57) is sharply critical of Lonnroth's view of the relationship between Njdls saga and Alexanders saga but appears to accept that the latter work portrays a primarily 'overweening Alexander'. Likewise Svanhildur Oskarsdottir (2000, 150), in a very brief discussion of Alexanders saga, highlights the fact, as she understands it, that 'Nature personified' brings about an end to the career of conquest because she is 'dismayed at Alexander's pride'; this is not wholly incorrect, but the goddess Natura is rather more than 'Nature personified', and her motivation is not fundamentally a desire to punish pride but concerns Alexander's plans to find the source of the Nile and to attack a place referred to as annarr heimrinn. The issues of Alexander's final plans and Natura's reaction to them, which are among the most complex in the saga, have been investigated by me in a paper (Ashurst

7

36

DAV!D ASIIURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

37

l

2000a) where, however, I neglected the possibility that the Old Norse audience may possibly have understood that there was a bridge between Hell and the source of the Nile' this omission is made good in the reworked analysis to be found in chapters 7 and 8 below. In his own treatment of the role of Natura and its significance for Alexander's death, Einar 61. Sveinsson felt boun.d to change his earlier view of the saga, quoted at the start of this Introduction, when he came to consider the matter afresh: although he still maintained (1972, 29) that the bulk of the narrative c?aracterises Alexander as magnanimus ('great-souled, n:agnammous, mettlesome' according to LS, and see the discussion of Cary in 1.2.1 above), Einar took the view that from the moment when Alexander considers an attack on the place called ~nnarr heimrinn he suffers a loss of all sense of measure, so that I,n the end the Alexandreis. 'ct sa traduction islandaise, est une etude d'hybris, de la derncsura' (1972. 32). WUrth (1996) also

stresses hubris and the I .s of I' .

. oss 0 mot crauon as major components

of the message deli v . d b h . .

. ere y t c end of the saga, and she notes,

rather neatly that the m '" Id h . .

, essage cou ave been directed agamst

the Icelanders who struggled for power at the end of the Sturlung

Age or to the ex '. ki

,. pansionrsj mgs of Norway: on the one hand (p.

311) Die Hybris d . I" d' h .

. ' er IS an ISC en FUhrer wurde - eben so wie

die H bri A

b Y ns lexanders - letztendlich mit ihrem Fall bestraft';

ut on the other (p 313) 'D' S . . .'

K.. . ., Ie aga zergt, wie Ehrgeiz emen

orng zum Herrs h ub

\IT C er u er groBe Teile der Welt machen kann.

wenn er aber das recht M B .'

II' e a aus den Augen verliert, so wird er

a es Wieder verlier ' Thi .

en. IS emphasis undoubtedly accords With

some of what th . .

k e saga IS saymg, but the ethical messages of the

wor are of course .

I more vaned and wide-ranging than this.

n conclusion I would' h: . .

fAi say t at commentanes on the meamng

o exanders saea hav II

ti . 0 e genera y suffered from a lack of atten-

Ion to detail esp . II" .

th t .' ecra y m discussing the mythological passage

a provides the co t f

f h n ext or Alexander's death. Some of them,

urt ermore ha .

, ve given too much weight to the few short passages of authori I

f '1 d a commentary critical of Alexander and have

ai e to ask wh th he i '

e er t e Judgements in these passages are borne

out by the evidence of the rest of the text. In addition there has been a general failure to notice that the theme of universal conquest - of world empire - is introduced very early in the saga and is insisted upon in every section of the story; hence the narrative framework in which the ethical messages are contained has been distorted. Most important, perhaps, the full significance of the episode of the Shining Visitant, in which Alexander receives the Christian God's promise of world empire (discussed below in 4.4-6), has not been recognised. Finally, there has been a widespread insensitivity to the saga's religious motifs in which Alexander functions, ambiguously, as a forerunner of Christ - a theme that is introduced by the speech of the Shining Visitant, who addresses Alexander in words echoing those used by God to Abraham and to the Messiah, and which is developed in the closing stages of the narrative. My intention, in this study, is to address these issues and hence to show that the ethical messages of the saga are more complex and far more ambiguous than has generally been acknowledged."

4 Note that Jonatan Pettersson's doctoral thesis. Fri oversottning i det medaltida Ydstnorden (University of Stockholm: Stockholm, 2009) appeared too late to be absorbed in the present study. Likewise the new edition by Andrea de Leeuw van Weenen, Alexanders saga, AM 519 4° in the Arnamagncean Collection, Copenhagen, Manuscripta Nordica (Museum Tusculanum, 2009) was not published in time to be used as the version of the saga quoted here.

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

39

CHAPTER I

brilliantly exploitative tyrant may desire (Boswell 1988). Or that the visionary aspirations of the truly great will be thwarted by the relatively petty concerns of the merely mediocre (Renault 1972). And if we are also aware of the Dionysiac element in Alexander's life, we could conclude that his career had, from first to last, a tragic inevitability that is its true meaning (O'Brien 1992). Common to these moralisations is the idea of failure: in one way or another, for good or for ill, Alexander failed.

The medieval account of Alexander's career as found in Alexanders saga also lends itself to moralisation; and here too the morals to be drawn from it are mutually contradictory, but they are different from those just stated because the trajectory of the career itself is fundamentally different. In this account Alexander actually becomes monarch of the entire world; also in this account the goal of world domination is fully articulated in Alexander's mind before ever he sets out against the Persian Empire, and from an early stage in the campaign his troops know of it and clearly approve. This difference in trajectory has consequences of the greatest importance for our understanding of the ethics of empire embodied in Alexanders saga, so I begin with a discussion of how the topos of world domination is handled at the climax of the book.

1.1.2 The Question of Serious Intent. To the modern reader the idea that Alexander the Great conquered the whole world is likely to seem so bizarre, and the way in which the event is narrated in Alexanders saga and its epic source may appear so abrupt and implausible, that a satirical intention may be suspected. Alternatively, if satire is ruled out as foreign to the nature of the saga, it may well be thought that the narrative has passed over into the genre of fantastical romance, of lygisogur perhaps, to be enjoyed for its literary qualities, which would then include the daring statement of the preposterous, but to be taken no more seriously than are the whimsies found in some versions of the Alexander Romance, with their flying chariot and diving-bell (J 1 240 and 242; J2 II 156 and 160; J3 180) and with the talking tree, which does indeed prophesy that Alexander will be master of the

The Conquest oj the World

1.1 Introduction

I 11Th T . t .

. . e rajec ones of Alexander's Career. The general

r~ader who is not already acquainted with medieval Alexander

literature and who ' h .

. ' approac es Alcxanders saga for the first

time with a modern s " f 1

. . ense 0 t 1C world and a modern knowledge

of history will bring to tl 0 •

. ' le narrative several preconceptions

concernmg the real AI" I I d

c cxanc cr. >ararnount among these, an

fundamental to all the .st . 0 h f' II . . "

res, IS teo owing view of his career:

As a very young man AI d

. cxan er set out on a military adventure

against the Persians' do, .. . 0

. an won a series of astonishing vlctones

which caused him d II 0 .'

. hi gra ua y to realise that their empire was

Wit in hIS grasp; having seized the Persian throne he continued to expand his d "

omuuons and fought his way east until he

reached the Indus II . 0

hi va ey, at which pomt his weary men forced

im to turn back und D db" . .

b 1· ,e eate ut unsatisfied: quite possibly he

e leved at this turni ' ,

E d knowl rnmg point that he was close to the World s

n, nowmg that ri h Iand I .

o IC an s ay unconquered before him but

unaware of Just how t

th vas a tract of Asia still separated him from

e eastern ocean.

This sketch of AI der ' .

11 '. exan er s career, which corresponds quite

we to hIstorical realit f d

itself dil I Y so ar as it can be determined, len s

rea I y to moral I' ati D' .

f . sa Ion. unng recent decades it has, III

act, been morahsed .

hi t . m several mutually contradictory ways by

IS onans and by th h

for e 1 e aut ors of historical novels. We can learn,

xamp e that a c .

last ad' onquenng demos will tire of bloodshed at

n seek the comfort f b" .

s 0 sta ility and peace, whatever their

r

r777t7 ·gSrrrt,rrrmm§Et,.weWrmt,jiTfWlttrsw"

40

DAVID ASIlURST

earth .(Jl 214; ~2 II 118; 13 158; not in Leo of Naples 1913). Such mterpretatlOns would drastically affect the reader's understanding of the saga's ethical scheme; they would influence or even determine the moral evaluation of all the steps that lead to the moment in the narrative when Alexander becomes sale ruler of the world. The present chapter, therefore, will examine the saga's .account of Alexander's accession to supreme power, will relate It to its background in the literature that was available in the Old Norse world of the thirteenth century and will show that the narrative must be taken seriously and accepted at face value, even t?ough its early audiences, as will be seen, had room to doubt Its historicity,

1.2

/ l

Overview oj the Episode in which Alexander Achieves World Empire

1.2: 1 The Context and the Sources. At thc point in the story at

WhICh Alexander sudd I .

. en y comes Into possession of the whole

world, he has conquered India and has returned to the heartlands of the Persian Empire by way of the Outer Ocean (AS 14420-21 1:629-34 and 14831-1491; Als X.15, X.88-95 and~. 168-70). He i~ E out to turn his attention westwards to annex North Africa and

u.rope and so to make himself by conquest einvall: konungr ~~l~ ~llom heim!~om (AS 1491-7; Als X.171-84, the phrase quotth emg an addItIon not found at this point in the Latin text); but

e reader knows that ti .

I I·· ime IS running out for Alexander, for a

p ot aid againsr him b th I +

d d . Y e nternal Powers has just been narrat-

e an the pOlson who h ·11

b IC WI put an end to his days has already

t::: ?trlepakred (~S 14421_14831; Als X.6-167). For a moment,

,I 00 saSIfthesto t b .. ·1

iar r th ry a e morahsed WIll be the one famI -

a e modern reader f th . . .

with h d ' a e conqueror cut down In his prime

hi muc one but more still to do, and half the world eluding IS grasp. Walter hims If

Al d e encourages this thought by saying that

exan er as he plan th

futuri 'wn t h d Sese new conquests, is miser ignarusque

ted in'th re c e and unaware of the future' (Als X.171, amit-

e saga); and he p .. . .

Alexander's i ". auses to rage In hIS own VOIce agamst

nsatIabIhty (AS 14914-17; Als X.198-201):

. nKrtYPTnn nems: rup

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

41

blecor ertu nu. pu vill enn buaz til hernaoar, en veizt eigi at per er buenn sa dryckr er stoova mon porsta pinnar miclo agirne.

(For a discussion of Walter's interjections at this point, see sections 8.4.2-3.) The reader is not left to ponder this matter for very long, however, for here the narrative makes a sudden swerve stating that Alexander's goal of world mastery is achieved through the spontaneous capitulation of all the nations which remain unconquered (AS 14932-1505; Als X.216-26):

Nu er aptr at snua til sogunnar. oc fra pvi at segia aor en Alexander latiz. at hamingian oc fregoen gerir hann einvallz hofoengia yfir heiminvm. pviat sioan er spuroiz vm vestrhalfu heimsens. oc nororhalfv, at hann hafoe undir sec laget alit Asiam. pa stoo aullom hofoengiom sva mikil ognn af honom. at allir villdu helldr piona honom. en hetta til at risa vid.

The turn of events thus narrated is not found in Walter's main historical source, there being a lacuna dating from long before Walter's time at this point in the story (Curt. X.iv.3); nor is it likely that Curtius ever wrote such a thing. Here, as often elsewhere, WaIter has consequently looked to his second-best authority, the Epitoma historiarum Philippicarum Pompei Trogi of Justinus (1935, XII.xiii.I-2).5 This was a respected work of history, which was probably written in the second or third century and was used by the much admired Orosius (see Prit., 9, and Romances oj Alexander 1991, x). The statement quoted above is immediately supported in Walter's text by an epic list, compressed in the Old Norse version, of some examples of the nations that sent their envoys to Babylon with letters of surrender (Als X.227-43, elaborating Justinus 1935, XII.xiii.l; AS 1505- 7). In both medieval texts the list includes Italy and hence, by

5 A brief account of Walter's borrowings from Justinus may be found in Prit. 11-12. For the present discussion the most important of these, apart from the passage cited above, is the statement that Alexander resolved to conquer the world with the relatively few men who were his followers when he set out from Greece (Justinus 1935, X1.vi.3; Als 1.263-67; AS 1024.28).

42

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

43

implication Rome a . . .

di ' - n Important point for reasons that will be

iscussed shortly (section 1.4).

In neither Alexanden . , h .

Al . saga nor t e Alexandrcis, then, IS

exander abandoned b F .

. h Y ortune Just when victory is within

SIg t, even though b th k . .

t . II 0 wor s toy WIth this possibility' nor is he

ragica y struck down i h . fail '

. . . n erOlC al ure as nemesis for a megalo-

maniac ambItIon to I th

I ru e e world, even though Walter seems to

g oat over the fact that th ke i

still e stro e IS Impending while Alexander

I casts greedy eyes h

t be fonnd : upon t e west. The pathos and meaning

o e round in the fl' .

AI d' rna scenes anse instead from the fact that

exan er s sudden de th .

obiective f I a . Occurs Just after he has achieved his

J 0 wor d soverergnry.

1.2.2 The Capitul u

th a IOn and Alexander's Response. After

e statement of these .

abb . . events there follows '1 bridge passage

revIated by the Old N ' . c ,.,

th orse translator, which describes how

e envoys of the nation" I AI .

co s, anc t\ cxander himself with his army,

nverge on Babylon (A S' 150 1l-20.

and significantl ." , Als X.243-(2). Most notably

Walter' . . y ?mltted from the translation of this passage is

s eprc simile (Al\' X 253 9' .

that ey . . . - ) likening Alexander to a tiger

es a group of horses' d .

but that' h . . .In waits to mangle their limbs,

IS s ot dead b h . .

ity is n t xrri y a unter, ThIS Image of doomed rapac-

o stnctl y appr . .

is no 10 . . opnate to the situation since Alexander

nger WaItmg to tt k b

surrender of th . a ac ut rather to receive the willing

e natIOns and havi " .

treat all peopl II ' avmg received It he prornrscs to

e we . nor do h d'

sion of what h desi es e ie before he can take posses-

it is because ofe themes, as. the tiger does in the simile. Perhaps

ese consider f . h

to abridge the final a Ions, apart from a general WIS

translator has . pages of the source text, that the Old Norse

omItted thes I' .' .

noted that Walt ' . e mes; but 111 any case It should be

n. er s Image contai

that has no I on ains an element of moral censure

p ace at this . .

stress is rather .pOll1t 111 the saga narrative, where the

on peace JO d h

description of h A ' y an armony as may be seen in the

ow lex and .

(AS 15018-20). 0 . er IS greeted when he enters Babylon

. c nu rior h 'b

garlyorenn sensr t. ann 1 orgena mel) miclum pris. bor-

ngr imot ho .\

nom. meo allre blioo oc sinom bezta

bunaoe. Walter (Als X.262) has the splendid apparel, but the telling phrase meo allre blioo is the Old Norse translator's addition.

The note of joy rather than harsh triumphalism is maintained when Alexander speaks to the envoys after receiving their gifts and surrender. His first words are chosen so as to refute accusations of vaunting arrogance or blasphemous self-conceit; they are touched with dramatic irony since Walter has recently taxed the gods with the madness of permitting Alexander's betrayal (AS 14920-23; Als X.205-6), but they appear all the more humble and pious for this fact (AS 15025-27; Als X.283-4): Guounum se pock er oss hafa gevet iamvel at sigra p~r borgir oc pau riki er ver hovom eigi set. Next Alexander scotches accusations of insatiable bloodthirstiness by showing a regard for peace, given the presuppositions that armed conquest is legitimate and that his own rule is just (AS 15027-29; Als X.285-8):

oe pat er oe yoor hamingia segir hann til sende manna. eigi sior en var er per hafet gefez vpp fvart valld bardagalaust.

The luck of those now surrendering, it is also made clear, is not just a matter of their having avoided bloodshed, but that they can expect special benefits - even though Alexander cautiously adds that he can be gracious towards all his subjects and not to these new ones alone (AS 15031-151\ Als X.292-7):

Ma par taka sonn derni til er Porus konungr er at ee kann milldr vera beim er mer vilia piona po at peir se tregir til. en peir er prautarlaust vilia minir menn geraz. seolo pat finn a at ee viI vnna peim frelsis fire sinn goovilia. en eigi pes at peirn picke prteldome liet at piona Alexandro.

1.2.3 A Connection with Icelandic History. It is possible that there is a contribution to the thirteenth-century debate about Icelandic independence encoded in the Old Norse version of this passage, and if that is so, then the moral righteousness of Alexander's speech will appear even more important. In WaIter's Latin text, the last part of the speech, which has no antecedent

44

DAVID ASHURST

in Walter's sources, bears messianic overtones, though not to the extent that it becomes a blasphemy. As Colker 's apparatus fontium for the lines notes, their background is a speech by Jesus (BS, Matthew 11 :29-30):

Tolite iugum meum super vos, et discite a me, quia mitis sum, et humilis corde: et invenietis requiem animabus vestris. Iugum enim meum suave est, et onus meum leve.

Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. (A V)

The ?Id Norse translator has lost the clarity of this messianic allusion ~y dropping the word iugum ('yoke') from line X.294 of the epic, and especially by omitting line X.291 which says ~hat King Darius, had he surrendered, 'would have felt nothII1g to be gentler than that yoke' tScnsisset nicliil esse iugo mansuetius isto). On the other hand, he has avoided awakening u~welcome associations with the anauoarok that Darius had I~I~,on Alexander's father (AS 219; Als 1.31), or with the Persian dp]anarok that the saga (818-19) imports into line 1.196 of the epic so as to reinforce the young Alexander's motivation in setting out on his conquests. More important, in place of the concept Of. s?ouldering a yoke, the translator has substituted the phrase

tturur menn sera: s . .

, uggestmg a much more personal and benign

bond of loyalty a d lovi .'

, n emp oymg a standard expression used 111

many sagas and bcettir for the process by which Icelanders (and others) entered the service of medieval kings. This substitution in th~ Old Norse text, therefore, brings Alexander's words into line WIth that tradition of s . . . I

. . aga-wnt1l1g; but it may also have histonca

and political signif . ,

I Icance, since becoming the king of Norway s

man was an import t .

hi f . an manoeuvre available to those IcelandIc

c ie tams who stru Ide. .

1260 T· gg e lor power 111 the decades up to the mid-

s. hIS would b II h

eat e more relevant if Alexanders saga

was composed a h f

hil h .' s as 0 ten been suggested, by Brandr Jonsson

w lee was 111 Nor . 1 .

way 111 262-3, when Icelanders were beg1l1-

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

45

ning to swear allegiance to the Norwegian king in such numbers that by 1264 the Icelandic commonwealth ceased to exist. The possibility that a political point with contemporary relevance is being made is somewhat strengthened by the fact that the Old Norse Alexander promises his new subjects freedom in return for their goovili in wishing to become his men; goovili is an addition to the Latin text (see lines X.294-7), a polite concession, perhaps, to the pride of independent farmers who had not been threatened by foreign invasion but nevertheless found themselves in need of a foreign king. Although no hard conclusion can be drawn, the alterations here make the passage as a whole look like a broad hint as to what the attitude of Icelanders might be, and to how the king of Norway should respond; but in that case the political point being made here may also be said to underline the seriousness with which the speech and its context need to be taken.

1.3 The Historicity of Alexander's World Empire

1.3.1 Some Doubts on the Part of Walter and his Translator. Taking the passage seriously as literature is one thing, but accepting it as fact may be quite another. Could early audiences of Alexanders saga have been expected to believe that Alexander really was made sole ruler of the world as narrated?

It happens that both Walter and his translator themselves express doubt of one kind or another about the plausibility of the free world's capitulation, although the different ways in which they do so are indicative of the different tempers of the two men and of the differences between the epic and the saga. In listing some of the nations that surrendered, Walter, himself a Frenchman, makes a patriotic aside in which he states that he can hardly believe that the Gauls gave themselves up (Als X.232- 33). This is typical of his ambiguous and double-edged sarcasm: depending on the view-point of the reader, and if taken seriously, the aside either throws doubt on the veracity of the whole episode because the Gauls could not possibly be so craven, or else it throws doubt on the outstanding courage of the Gauls because

46

DAVID ASIIIIRST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

47

the~ showed themselves to be no better than anyone else - in which cas~ the remark can serve to prove just how utterly overwhelmmg the fear of Alexander was. Since Walter states emphatically (X.243-45) that all nations surrendered, including

the notably furio 'T' ( •

'. us leutons X.234-35), the second interpreta-

tion If the matter' d h . .,

, IS presse , as to be the right one' but in reality

the remark is no doubt th '" ' .

a rowaway line primarily designed to

flatter the less atte ti . .

. n rve among the author's compatriots, and It

only reveals ItS sarcastic nature if its logic is followed through.

To the .statement that all nations surrendered Walter also adds the followmg remark (Ats X.245-48):

their occurrence, even if those rulers would have capitulated once the news had arrived. Nevertheless he goes along with the story, labelling it 'extraordinary' (undarlect) rather than impossible.

1.3.2 Comestor and Veraldar saga. The background learning that the author of Alexanders saga may be presumed to have had allows much room for the historicity of these events to be doubted.

Petrus Comestor (1855, cols 1496-98), whose twelfth-century Historia scholastica appears to have been well known in the learned circles of thirteenth-century Iceland, mentions neither the supposed events nor the idea of world empire in the overview of Alexander's career which is included in his commentary on the Book of Esther (Comestor 1855, cols 1496-98).6 Tantalisingly enough, Comestor (col. 1497) does allude briefly to the interview with the arbor solis, the talking Tree of the Sun known from the Historia de preliis and mentioned above (section 1.1.2), whilst an addition cited in Migne's text of Comestor explains that the tree prophesied that Alexander would die in Babylon; but nothing is said of his becoming 'master of the earth' (cols 1497-98).

Nor is Alexander accredited with achieving world empire in the account of him found in Veraldar saga, an Icelandic work that stems originally from the late twelfth century and is extant in eleven manuscripts or fragments representing two redactions (WUrth 1998, 173-77). Veraldar saga (1944, 40) says only the following about the extent of Alexander's dominions: Alexander kannadi alia sydrhalfo heims ok bardi: via marga konvnga ok hafdi iamnan sigr. Since the region of the world that Alexander conquered is specified as the southern part (of the northern hemisphere, that is), it is implied that he did not conquer the northern part, i.e. Europe, and did not achieve hegemony of all nations. Nevertheless the concept of a world empire ruled by one man, which may seem ridiculous to the modem reader, is not foreign

legatos indc uidcrcs

Affluere et naues rerum spccicbus onustas Quadrupedumque greges quo pcrucnissc loquacem Credere uix posses farnae prernobilis auram.

One eould hav . .

f hi e seen envoys, ships laden with all manner

o t II1gs and he ds fl'

I ' r s () iorscs all flocking to Babylon from

p aces Where one could ." 'I .

. sc.trcc y believe that even the chatter-

Ing breeze of exec ti r II . d

(p . ) p Ion <1 y nimble Rumour had ever reache . ru.

The more seriou d I'

Contra t . s an Iteral-minded Old Norse translator, by

s , omIts Walt ' fi

age of th G er s irst statement of doubt, about the cour-

e ~bMdro h' &

the 10 . ti ' nverts t e second into a real concern lor

gls ICS of the sjj . .

of Afri S· . ~I uarron. He states concisely that the kmgs

ica, pam SICily It I F 11

sent lette f' ,a y, ranee and Germany (Saxland) a

rs 0 surrender t Al

ment with th h 0 exander, but he prefaces the state-

e prase sva .r : •

little (AS 1505-10). e~ sagt, so distancing himself from It a

,and to this he adds the following (AS 15011-13):

oe peir hofOcngiar . . .

prcndum gera marglr sma rnenn til hans mea shkvm t' . cr undarlect h" d . sva scm rna I'ICCla at hcyrt heme nafn Alexan n.

ungt var hans riki.

Clearly the translator s. .

tanr rulers t h uspected that It was implausible for dis-

o ave heard of Al d' " ft r

ex an er s victories so soon a e

6 For a concise account of Comestor's Historia scholastica see Wiirth (1998, 88-91). The Historia is cited extensively in the mid-thirteenth-century icelandic section of Stjorn (1862, 349-654) and is one of the sources for Gyoinga saga (1995, lxxxix),

48

DAVID ASIII1RST

to V~rald{~r saga, which reserves this destiny for the Romans startmg with lui ius Caesar (p. 49):

Jvlivs Cesar var fy ,t R '-

h .' rs r vrnvcna yfirkonvngr allz heims. Af

ans nafni var hvcrr k C ~

h f onvngr esar kalladr sa er pat riki hefir

at.

After the defeat of M k

(p 50) th ar Anthony, Veraldar saga soon adds

. ,e next sale emp f h

establish d h eror ate world was Augustus, who

e t e pax Rom d i

J, 0 ana an instituted a universal census:

pa an fra varo Avgv t . . . . . h '. s vs etn keisari vfir ollv veralldar riki.

ann setti friO vm all I' ..

a mediev I d an tetm og let rita allra manila nojn. To

a rea er alread . .

and orthod y acquaInted with this relatively sober

ox work of hi t h .

Alexand s ory, t erefore, the claims made In

ers saga that the M '.

world rna h e acedoman king became ruler of the

y ave seemed het I .. .

Roman heg eroc ox or erroneous, anticipatmg the

emony as they d b

utterly absurd. 0, ut they would not have appeared

1.3.3 The '" t'

res rrnony f S .

would certainl hr 0 ,cnpturc. Another work that

y ave been k .

the Middle A nown to every educated reader In

AI ges and which h: , . b . .,. f

exander's su as dearIng on the historicity 0

. . pposed world '.

slfIed by Protest empire IS I Maccabees now clas-

ants as a b k f '

full biblical auth . . 00 a the Apocrypha, but which had

. onty III th di

WIth an aCCOunt of Al e me ieval period. The work opens

I . exande '

OWIng statements (BS r s career, which includes the fol-

, 1 Maccabees 1'2-5)'

[Ale~~nder] constituit . . . .

mUllItlOnes et i t..J' . praeha muIta, et obtinuit ornlllum

fi ,n eueclt reg

lI1es terrae' er a . es terrae, et pcrtransiit usque ad

. ' ccepIt sr· " . .

terra In conspectu' po ta multltudllllS gentium: et sJlUlt

fort '. ems. Et cong '. .

em llImls: et ex It regavu virtutem, et exercltum

regi a atum est t I . .

ones gentium ,e e evatum cor eius: et obtIllUlt

, et tyrannos' t f .

[AI . e acn sunt illi in tributum-

exander] ~

of I ought many b

I a I people, and sl attics, and seized the strongholds

a ong II ew the ki

a the way to th II1gs of the earth and passed

spoil f e ends f h '

in hi s ~ the multitude of th 0 t. e earth; and he received the

IS SIght. And he gath e natIOns: and the earth feIl silent

ered forc d

es, an an army exceedingly

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

49

strong: and his heart was lifted up and exalted: and he seized the rulers and the countries of the nations: and they were made to pay him tribute.

The scripture then goes on to mention Alexander's sudden death and the division of his empire.

In the passage quoted, the phrase multitudo gentium ('a multitude, or a large number, of the nations') strictly implies that there were some nations which did not surrender spoils to Alexander; but this does not necessarily mean that certain nations remained free, since Alexander did not always despoil those which surrendered willingly, as can be exemplified by his famous act of piety in declining to pillage the lews (AS 183-21; Als I.542-54; Comestor 1855, cols 1496-97). The rest of the passage repeats over and over again an ambiguity which is caused by the absence of definite and indefinite articles in Latin, and which may be exemplified by the phrase obtinuit regiones gentium. This may be translated as 'he seized the countries of the nations' (i.e. all of them) or as 'he seized some countries of some nations'. The second of these readings is perhaps the more natural with regard to its meaning, but the former is possible and was certainly the one understood by the Old Norse translator of Alexanders saga, since he made Alexander allude to the phrase siluit terra in conspectu eius, 'the earth fell silent in his sight', by telling his troops at oil ioro heftr pagnat ivarv augliti (AS 15}7); the word for 'all' here is an addition not found in the immediate source text (Als X.302). The Maccabees passage as a whole, therefore, cannot be used as outright validation of the statements in Alexanders saga that all the peoples of the world fell under Alexander's sway, but it can be taken to agree with them, and was taken in this way by the author of the saga. Clearly the redactor, or possibly the original writer, of Gyainga saga, which follows Alexanders saga in the main manuscript AM 226 fol. and which begins with a long paraphrase of 1 Maccabees, also believed that the quoted passage was in agreement with Alexanders saga since he abridged it by making the following statement (Gyoinga saga 1995,3):

. 77 1 Pi araner umnertrw,w

. 't'tT¥t' "ttdfftfWme!'rt 'snar

50

()" V I () ,\ S III ' I{ S T

~Icxandr hinn Riki ok hinn mikli kong!'. IJa cr hann hafdi sl,gmt ok undir sik lagt allar [iiodir ihciminum scm fyrr var R~t~t, ,ok harm var suikinn af sinum monnum. IXI skipti hann aiki srno rncd sinurn monnum x i].

Here the phrase sem fyrr var uitat refers back to Alexanders saga, which is also the most immediate source of the statement,

not found in 1 M b h '

acca ees, t at Alexander was betrayed by hIS

~en. (The detail of his dividing the empire amongst twelve of

hIS followers how ' '

. ' ever, comes from elsewhere.) Since GyiJmga

saga IS a sober work on an episode of sacred history and is

based in part on a c 'I b " .

anornca ook, the inclusion of this reference

to Alexanders sa . f urear i . .

ga IS 0 great Importance for It demonstrates

conclusively that . ' .'

some medieval readers of the episode 111

Alexanders saga wh 1M' . f

th ere t ie accdonian k111g becomes ruler 0

he ~hole world not only took it seriously but believed in it as t e lIteral truth If . " M

226 . . we give credence to the epilogue of the A

fol. version of Gy ). . . '" b h it

d ( 1I1/{1l M//{lI, In which It IS stated that ot I

an Alexander\' saua \ ' , I' ).

. . (') vcrc t ic work of Brandr Jonsson (Gy( inga

saga 1995, Ixxxiii ' d 21 ( " .. h

han lJ), then It further confirms that t e

aut or of Alexander" I ' . "

. .\ Ml/{a tirnsc]] took such a view of the epi-

sode, and 111 this cas I h b

th . e on y t e phrase scm fyrr val' Ritat need e

e work of Who ' , . .

th 'I ever put the two sagas together, If we dIsmISS

e epl ogue on th th h '

de h ' e 0 er and, we are still left with strong eVI-

nee t at Old Nors di h

lite I I' e au rences were expected to believe in t e

ra rea tty of AI der '

When AM 22 ~xa~ er s world empire, at least by the 1360s

1995 . ,~ fol. IS likely to have been written (Gyoinga saga , XVI-XVU),

1,3.4 The Word f El ' , .

another t thO uCldarllls. In addition to this, there IS

ex t at make bri

Alexand ' s a nef but entirely explicit reference to

er s conquest of th h . '

The Lati " e w ole world, namely ElllcuiartUS,

In ongmal of thi

twelfth c t IS work was probably written in the early

en ury by th '

(apparentl e so-called Honorius Allgllstodllnensls

. y a nom de plum ,)' it ' '. I' -

ity bein e , I rapidlv achieved great popu ar

, g used to teach I

unlearned I it e ementary Christianity chiefly to the

ar y, and in th '

e course of the MIddle Ages was trans-

/ ..

r

i

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

51

lated into High and Low German, French, Provencal, Italian, English, Dutch and Swedish as well as Old Norse (Old Norse 'Elucidarius' 1992, ix-x). The Old Norse version was in existence by circa 1200, this being the date of the earliest manuscript fragment, AM 674a 4to, which was written in Iceland but may have been copied from a Norwegian original (Elucidarius 1989, xxvii). It is therefore likely that the contents of Elucidarius would have been quite familiar to the early audiences of Alexanders saga, through the Latin version or through the vernacular, The passage relevant to the issue of Alexander's world empire comes near the end of the work, as part of a section in which the Master is coaxing the Student into an appreciation of what Heaven will be like by asking him to imagine the best that could be hoped for in this life: What if you could live as long as Methuselah? What if everyone could be as good friends with you as David was with Jonathan? And what if you could be as powerful as King Alexander, who conquered the whole world? (Elucidarius 1989, 146):

Magifter EN I vip peffa hI ute alla verer bu Iva rikr I [em alexanor conongr ef mep riki fino I lagpe vnoer fie allan heim. Difcipulu[Tfgn ef.

The text here, transcribed from AM 674a 4to, closely follows the Latin (III, 100, printed at the foot of the Old Norse passage) except that the phrase allan heim has been substituted in place of the names Asia, Africa and Europe, the continents which indeed comprised the world of mankind, As we have seen, several works of sober history appear to know nothing of this universal conquest, yet in Eluctdarius the Master and his Student take it for granted, Many a Norwegian or Icelander of moderate learning, therefore, must have done the same,

1.4 The Roman Rebellion

1.4,1 The Received Opinion Concerning Roman Hegemony. As mentioned in section 1.3,2, Veraldar saga says nothing about Alexander becoming sole ruler of the world, but accords this

7

. Ezrn:POWt5SR7rmrtr'X'ww';

. iUri Y' n 'riffVr'm,frttn 17'11 trSS

52

DAVID ASIIURST

~minence to the Roman emperors. In doing so, it was falling mto line with an orthodox theological idea, discussed by Cary (1956, 104-5), to the effect that world hegemony was reserved for Rome because the early period of its empire coincided with the Incarnation of Christ, whose spiritual rule in the form of the supposedly Catholic (i.e. worldwide) Church would also centre ultimately on Rome. It was from the legal enactments of the Emperor Constantine and his successors that the Church

derived its I iti . '

. egi imacy III the secular world, and as Einar 01.

Sveinsson (1953, 105) has observed in connection with the ~turlun~ Age, 'From the Roman Empire it [the Church] inher-

ited the Idea of a univ I . '1'

ersa empire, as well as the will and ability

to conquer orga . d I'

. ' I11se, an ru e. The association of the Roman

Catholic Church ith h' .

WI t e worldwide Roman Empire was no

mere whimsy of ec I .: . I .

c csrasuca writers but had material relevance

to the actualities f I' C •

. 0 ne III Norwegian and Icelandic societies of

the twelfth and thi t tl " . . h

. r ecn 1 centuries, 111 which prelates Vied Wit

kings and chieftolins" . . . . .

'. ' . over property rights and [nrisdiction. Hence,

m this connection ' 0 • •

R . ' we may 110te the Important role played by the

omans rn the pOI t f G ).

ar 0 y( 11lJ,:(I SOJ,:([ that paraphrases I Mac-

cabees, a book that 0 b

J can e characterised as the story of how the

ews threw off th

h e tyranny of Alexander's successors and of

ow they establish d h .

b H' . eat eocratrc system of government headed

y a igh Pnest corr di

ment of the Ch espon mg, mutatis mutandis, to the govem-

the I urch. In 1 Maccabees 14:24-45 we are told that

peop e set up tabl t M . . .'

tion '. e s on ount Zion beanng a long mscnp-

in praise of S'

stating irnon, the brother of Judas Maccabeus, and

somewhat ambo

Simon' iguously that either the Roman people or

s own made hi h . . 7

In Gyo' rm t e High Priest and ruler of the JeWs.

7 mga saga (1995, 100-02) the account is much compressed

BS, I Maccabees 14:35 _ " .

cogitabat r. . Et vult! populus actum Simonis, ct R/or/ll/1l quam

Jacere gentl sua' l . .

sacerdotern 'And c, c posuerunt CIIIII dllCCIII 01'1111111. et prlllC1pCln

was intend.' the people saw Simon's activity and the glory that he

mg to create f hi ' . d

and High P " or IS nation, and they appointed him their lea er

nest. The ambi > • •

mean the Jews guity stems from the word populus which may

which is itself or may refer back to the populus Rornanus of verse 24,

a corrupt' . .'

Ion III the Vulgate text.

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

53

and amounts to an unequivocal statement that Simon derived the legitimacy of his priesthood from Roman authority:

Ok er petta spyrz til aoma borgar. at Jonathas er drepinn. enn Simon brodir hans komfx i stadfnn, pa senda peir nu ord til hans. ok vilia bfnda med hann sinn felag skap. Simon tok pi val. ok sendir Romuerium einn skiolld af gulli geruan. Enn pcir gefa honum frealst aikit. alit af <yllu judea. rcufnliga, ok senda honum koronu ok purpura. anulum ok gull dalk. ok allan kongs bunao. ok setia hann yfir kenni max, ok hertoga allz folksins. Ok var petta alit skrifat gull stofum. ok vpp fest f Salomons musteri ollum til ill syndar.

The Roman imperial pretensions which are so evident in this passage, it should be noted, have already been heartily endorsed in 1 Maccabees 8:1-13, which Gyoinga saga (1995, 59-60, A-text) paraphrases briefly:

[Judas] hugsar at nomueriar ero menn nikaztir i hefminum. ok peir briota alit vndir sik huar sem peir fara. ok peir hallda sitt niki med peirri sam pyckt. at engin peirra a/fundadi axan.

On the basis of this optimistic preview of the pax Romana, Judas enters into an alliance with the Romans til bess at beir tceki af peim vfrid girkia (p. 61, A-text; but note that in place of vfridr the C-text has vfrelsi, which is closer in meaning to the Vulgate'S iugum Graecorum, 'yoke of the Greeks', in 1 Maccabees 8: 18). The ultimate consequence, as we have seen, is that the Jews, the forerunners of the Church, fall into the orbit of a new imperial power soon to dominate the world, which obligingly establishes the rule of an autocratic priest.

1.4.2 The Treatment of the Subject by Walter and his Translator. Considerations of this kind presented Walter of Chatillon with a dilemma: he wished to follow Justinus and to crown Alexander's career with the ultimate prize of world empire, the object towards which the narrative has moved from first to last; but at the same time he needed to take account of

54

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

55

the orthodox ecclesiastical view which reserved world empire for the Romans. To escape the dilemma he resorted to a narrative manoeuvre which at best looks clumsy and at worst may appear as a sleight of hand. When Alexander has dismissed the emissaries of the free nations after receiving their surrender, he addresses his own men and explains that in order to maintain their capacity for military action they must start looking to new places for someone to attack bviat fill er ncr ecke via at briotai ipessvm heiminum (AS 15113-14). Here the qualifier ner is the Old Norse translator's punctilious addition, for in the Latin text (Als X.312) Alexander says that nothing at all remains to be done - an example of the carelessly emphatic overstatement typical of :Valter's style. Alexander in fact goes on to announce that there IS,. after all, one last battle to be fought in this world. Only a few mmutes earlier Alexander had given audience to the emissaries of the supplicant nations, including 'Italy', and he has specifically received a letter of capitulation from the Romansr' but all ~f a ~udden it transpires that he has heard of an impending rebelhon in Rome (AS 15122-25; Als X.322-25):

Vituo cr hat at P " h .

F "umvenar ritadu fyrir stundu til min mcd pClm

manne er Emilius het oc kaullodu mic pa konung sinn. en nu heve ec Spurt at h' '1' .

pcrr VI I VIO oss risa.

when Alexander tells them what his response to Rome will be, even though it must delay his wider plans (AS 15125-27; Als X.326-8): oc pviat ee vil at fullgort se pat er auke yora fr~go. pa seal nu bessu nest hallda til Rumaborgar. oe briota han a nior. To this the Old Norse translator adds one more phrase to re-emphasise the fact that the suppression of rebellious Rome will be the very last battle in this world: Alexander's intention, he says, is to deal with Rome en heria sloan {annan heim (AS 15127-28).

Clumsy though this handling of the Roman theme is, it allows Walter and his translator to make Alexander the legitimate sovereign of the whole world without pre-empting the pax Romana mentioned by Veraldar saga (1944, 50; see section 1.3.2 above) and hinted at by Gyoinga saga (1995, 61, already discussed in this section). Hence they accord with Justinus's historical account while at the same time they satisfy the requirements of the ecclesiastical view of history with regard to Rome, keeping her free for her unique role of universal empire both temporal and spiritual. They can only do this, however, at the expense of making the eternal city appear vacillating and treacherous, which in Walter's case may indeed have been the intention since it can be argued that the Alexandreis exhibits barely veiled anti-Roman sentiment in various places (see Dionisotti 1990, 85-90), not least in the opening address to the Muse, which contains the curious statement that if Alexander had lived until Walter's own day without becoming senile, fame would never speak of Caesar's triumphs, and all the glory of Romulus's race would be rendered tawdry (Als 1.5-8). Walter himself appears to have had first-hand knowledge of Rome and the Papal Curia (Als p. xvi); that he did not at all like what he saw is demonstrated by his poem beginning 'Propter Sion non tacebo' (Walter 1929, 18-30), a particularly fine attack on the vices of the city and court that were home to the Vicar of Christ. The author of Alexanders saga, as could be expected of a mid-thirteenth-century Icelandic churchman (if he was such), did not share such anti-Roman sentiments as he found in his source; apart from his removal of the comments about Rome in the invocation of the Muse, which could have

Alexander's way ith belli .

d . WI re elhous CIties has already been recount-

e WIth appro I' 9 I

va m an early part of the story (AS 1126_13' ; A s

1.284-350) at hi h . d

d ' W IC point Greek Thebes was totally destroye

an the act was d ib d .

escn e by the narrator as one of taking venge-

ance makliga 'fi . 1

' Ittmg y' (AS 1320; Als 1.349; see 4.2.4 below).

The Macedonian I

genera s can hardly be surprised, therefore,

8 Walter's quasi-histori I .

and if ea source for the Idea that the Romans sent a message

gl ts to Alexand b ' , I 's

(1993 129) ,er egging him not to attack them is Julius Va enu

1326' N' or the Zachcr Epitolllc 1.21), Sec also .II 40. 12 I 66-68, and

, ote that Colke " Iy

cites Juli v' r s apparatll.l'/OlltiulIl for Ills X,322-25 erroneoUs

IUS alenus I 22" addin , , , ' '" I 'us

or the E ' , " In a Ilion It makes It appear as It Julius va en

.pUome IS also th . tly

rebell db" e SOurce for the idea that the Romans subsequen

e , ut this IS not the case,

56

DAVID ASHURST

been motivated by stylistic considerations. this is evidenced by his suppression of the word iactatrix in Walter's phrase iactatrix Roma, 'Rome the braggart' (Als V.491; AS 8325), and by his omission of the reference to 'the walls of greedy Rome' (auare menia Rome) as a place of pilgrimage in his paraphrase of Walter's final sermon (Als X.443; see AS 15414-28). But if the t~anslator felt any misgivings about the portrayal of Rome as a city that pledged allegiance one moment and fomented rebellion th~ next, he does not reveal them and could in any case have pomted to the fact that this happened while Rome was a fickle republic, long before it achieved its destined role as an imperial autocracy.

1.4.3 Consequences for the Presentation of Alexander's Career. For the portrayal of Alexander's career in its entirety there is an important consequence to this narrative device, namely that Alexander is now going to die without being de facto fully in. control of his worldwide kingdom, even though he has technically achieved the rights and status of catholic monarch. To this limited extent he will fall short of perfect success, and so Walter and his translator toy again with the idea th~t Alexander was struck down before he could achieve the

ulttmate goal' as th . .' d f '1

. . ey arrange things he both achieves It an ar s

to. achieve it. Alexander himself notes his dissatisfaction with this state of affairs when he tells his men that there is another world to be conq d d . J,' . uere an adds the following: oc vist unt ec yVI

X1lla er ec seal enn eigi hafa sigrat einn til full: (AS 15121-22; Ais

.321) Nothing .

f . . more IS made of this matter in the closing pages

R either the epic or the saga, but it should be noted that the

oman rebelIion id . .. h

h provi es, implicitly, one reason amongst ot ers

w y Alexander's d h "

thi eat at this Juncture is a good and necessary

mg, however trao i d . . d d

agic, an IS not a punishment for any nus ee

he wrongful attitude: Alexander has to die because if he did not

e would unw'tf I I

th Chri I mg y destroy the power which is destined to ru e

e nstian world and to claim divine authority over the world

as a whole.

FinalI .

y It must be added that by it lumsl'ness the

I s very c

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

57

account of the Roman rebellion serves, paradoxically, to underline the seriousness of the preceding claim that Alexander became sole ruler of the world. Doubtless the narrative could have been handled more smoothly, but its substance would always have appeared as a more or less awkward measure to which Walter resorted so as to salvage the dignity, though not the integrity, of Rome. It was a measure that would have been unnecessary if Alexander's pre-empting of the Roman world-hegemony were not intended to be perceived as real, as the Roman hegemony itself was perceived as real.

1.5 Conclusions

The author of Alexanders saga, like that of Gyoinga saga but unlike Walter of Chatillon, is wholeheartedly supportive of Rome as the capital of the spiritual empire of Christianity and as the secular origin of the Church's legitimacy (sections 1.4.1 and 1.4.2), and yet he goes along with Walter's clumsy manoeuvre in which the perfidy of Rome is exhibited against Alexander. Thus he indicates the importance of the Roman rebellion for the overall scheme of the narrative, which requires that Alexander should die before destroying Rome and yet that he should already have received the surrender of the city so as to make complete his short-lived conquest of the whole world (1.4.3). This episode, in fact, typifies the paradox of Alexander - his inadequacy and greatness - namely that he was neither Christ nor Augustus, and so could not be allowed to usurp their joint role in history, and yet he prefigured both 0.2.2, discussed further in 4.4-6, 8.3 and 8.5 below).

The Roman episode also demonstrates the complete serious-

ness of the idea that Alexander really did conquer the world (1.4.2 and 1.4.3), since it would not have been necessary to include it if the theme of world conquest could lightly be dismissed as a flight of fancy. For Old Norse audiences the idea of world empire in itself would certainly have caused no problems, endorsed as it is by Veraldar saga in connection with imperial Rome (1.3.2); but

58

DAVID ASIIURST

Veraldar saga and Corn' ·t .. I

. . cs or cast doubt on whether Alexander

himself achieved such an empire (1.3.2), and Walter and his

translator toy briefl . h d b

Y Wit ou ts on the plausibility of their own

account (l.3.1) on! t ° b:

, y a a andon them as shown by their treat-

ment of the Roman th Th f

. erne. e act, however, that Old Norse

audiences were prepa d' . .

. " re ,10 vanous times and places to accept

the historicity of Al der ' '

d ex an er s world empire is confirmed beyond

oubt by the treatment f th . .

and b . a e subject 10 Gyoinga saga (1.3.3)

.y the testimony of Elucidarius (1.3.4).

Given that the eve t

huzelv si . n was regarded with all seriousness, it is

uge y signiflcant that AI der ' .

. ex an er s accession to universal power

IS presented as an a . f .

to b . ccasion a JOY that prompts the new monarch

e merciful and g

. bl enerous, and to promise that his rule will be

equita e (1 2 2) In his narrati .,.

AI d '" t IS narrative we are not presented with an

exan er who desce d .

crazed b" n s into bloodthirsty tyranny or alcohol-

ar itrariness FOI f . .

ny of Ro ' . " ,r. rom It: for reasons to do with the desn-

me, and also With th: It' .: .. . d i

ch '"' c rasi-mcssuuuc role discusse III

apter 8, Alexander dies' t tl

e . ,'. s a ie moment when he has created an

mpire that IS pam ted . I .

struck I In t ic rosiest colours, one in which awe-

peop es floek to OWl tl ' " " . I

with Chri Iike rni 1 ie sway of a pnncc who Will ru e

nst I e mildnes (I 22

surrender d AI SS •. ). The detailed treatment of the

an exander

relevant to the self : s ~esponse mayor may not be directly

crown in the 126 -subjecuo» ~f Icelanders to the Norwegian Alexande ' Os (1.2.3), but ItS significance for the ethics of

r s career cann t be mi . .

tory follow d f . a e missed: It confirms that the traJec-

e rom first t I .

that if th 0 ast IS one of success and suggests

e career also' I

sought outsid h . InVO ves moral failings, these must be

e t e basic p

rogramme of world conquest.

CHAPTER 2

The Roles of Fame and Fortuna

2.1 Introduction

It will be remembered from the account in section 1.2.1 that it was luck, or more properly Fortuna (hamingja), and fame (jrcego) that were said to have made Alexander the sole ruler of the world before he died. The Old Norse version at this point (AS 14934) slightly modifies the Latin source, which reads as follows

(Als X.216-18):

Vt tamen ante diem extremum, quem fata parabant, Omnia rex regum sibi subdita regna uideret,

Fecit eum famae sonus et fortuna monarcham.

Nevertheless, that this king of kings might see every kingdom subject to him before that final day for which the fates were now preparing, noisy Rumour and Fortune made Alexander

supreme ruler. (Prit.)

The ascription of Alexander's success to Fortuna, who is described, complete with her wheel, in lines II.186-200 of the Alexandreis and at 2425_257 in the saga, is a glancing reference to the generally hostile view of Alexander which held that his achievements did not really follow from his merit but were a matter of arbitrary luck, which furthermore was a corrupting influence on him (discussed by Cary 1956, 80). While alluding to this view, however, the Old Norse translator goes a long way towards rebutting it since he attributes part of Alexander's success tojrcego ('fame, renown'), using a word that signifies a personal possession, almost a personal quality, much valued by the

60

DAVID ASIIURST

warrior class 'In I itl " , "

" c c WI 1 positive moral connotations according to

the ~arrior ethic; in contrast, the Latin text employs the morally ambiguous possibl ' . '

, ' ," y pejorative term fatnae SOIlIlS ('the noise of

~mour ), which designates something not necessarily related directly to Alexander's own qualities.'> At the same time, in Old Norse literature the term hamingja, which is used repeatedly through~ut the saga to render the Latin fortuna, regularly bears connotations of a personal attribute for which the individual who

exhibits it may be t d '

es eeme , and the one who lacks It may be

censured' hence th t . ,

, e s atement that hamingja made Alexander

the ruler of the wo ld i lik 1 "

. r IS ley to have been received with appro-

bation by the di

au renee of Alexanders saga whereas the word

fortuna would h

. ave prompted moral doubt in the more learned

audience of the Al I'

, " exanr rets. The background of these subtle but

slgl11flcant diffe b '

rences etween the Old Norse and Latin texts,

together with thei I' , f

Al ' err Imp tcations for our ethical judgement 0

exander s career 'It it I' , bi t

f ", I S c nnacuc moment, will be the su ~ec

o the present chapr . b ' , ' h

AI c cr: ut a diSCUSSion of the extent to whic

exander was cor t I b ' d

. rup ec y his good fortune will be deferre

to chapter 5,

2,2 Fuego

2,2,1 The Desi bTt '

of th ra I I Y of FrregiJ. The positive connotatIOnS

F 't e, ~ord Jrcego are evident from the glosses given in CVand

n z. good report f

rpm I tFri ,arne, renown' (CV); rosende Omtale. Be-

me se Pritz.;

The desirabilit f Jr '

morally b ' Y 0 cego as an attribute that may qUite

e acqUIred by fo f "d f

Christia I 1 rce 0 arms, at least 111 the mm s 0

n ce anders 1 ki , d)

---__ 00 mg back upon their (real or fancre

9 To appreciate the ambi " ,

Consider the I ' gUllIes and mixed connotations of the wordfama,

g osses In OLD hi " 'd ,'1

News, tidin . b ,,' w ich are given In the following or er:

, gs, ,a malicIOus '1 d of

Information)' b ( ,,' s an er, 2 Rurnour, hearsay (as a source

Th ' , personIfIed) 3 T ' diti , " talk 5

e report wht h ,f,1 I IOn, story, 4 Public opmron, c '

IC a person ha ' ." ' n (:or a specified qualit 6 s; one s reputation: b. (w, ge~l,) a reputatJo_

nety, 7 Fam I y), One s good name, reputation; b. III repute, nato

e, gory, renown' b ( , bi ct

of fame, "pride"" ' , personJlled); c. (transf.) a source or 0 ~e

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

61

heathen past, may be illustrated with reference to Geirmundar pdttr heljarskinns, the story that begins the Sturlunga saga compilation. to It should be noted first that this battr shares with Alexanders saga the ethically significant theme of proving royal parentage by aggressive and domineering behaviour: Geirmundr and Hamundr are originally brought up as the children of a thrall while the thrall's son is reared as a prince; but at an early age they make the thrall-prince cry by taking away the gold ring which he has been playing with, and this prompts the king to accept them as his own true sons tSturlunga saga 1946, I 5-7), There then follows a statement that affirms the desirability ofJrcego and serves at the same time to demonstrate that the king made the right decision, for it carries the implied ethical judgement that the heljarskinn boys were made of the right stuff for royalty and were behaving as king's sons should (p. 7): Ok pegar er peir vdru frumvaxta, J6m peir 61' landi at herja ok ojluou brdtt bceoi fjdr ok frcegoar. This ethical judgement is also evident in the opening passage of Alexanders saga, where there is doubt about whether Alexander was genuinely the son of King Philip or of the magician Neptanabus; in a statement which has no correlative in the Latin source, the Old Norse translator affirms both Alexander's royal paternity and the moral validity of his career of conquest, from the point of view of the warrior ethic, by making the following remark (AS 116-17): En athofn hans heftr pat po sloan sannliga birt. at hann val' konungs son en eigi horbarnn.

It is certain that the author of the battr wrote with approval when he declared that Geirmundr and Hamundr won riches and fame on their Viking raids, for he goes on immediately to cite the (now lost) saga of Hr6kr svarti and to state that the brothers vdru par kallaoir mestir hermenn af scekonungum I bann tima tSturlunga saga 1946, I 7). In fact, since the story then presents Geirmundr as a major Icelandic landnamsmaor whose descend-

10 Hallberg (1993, 616) dates the Sturlunga saga compilation to c,1300 and is of the opinion that Geirmundar pdur heljarskinns, which stands as 'a kind of historical prelude' to the main story, may have been written by the compiler himself.

62

DAVID ASIIURST

ants are listed in the final chapter of the work. the author is evidently anxious that nothing should detract from the hero's jrcego; this becomes clear when. having said that Geirmundr left Norway to avoid the overwhelming power of Haraldr harfagri, he adds the following (p. 7):

En ek hefi pat heyrt, at f pann tfrna, er pcir brreor k6mu or vestrvfking, vreri sem mest oro a. at engi pzetti vera fregoarfor meiri en fara til islands. I I

Here, then, we have an example of an Icelandic writer or redactor of the Christian period for whom frccgd was so desirable a quality, even when the possession of it was merely vicarious, that he jealously guarded it on behalf of a heathen Viking and at the same time, in the context of the Slur/lingo saga compilation, ~sed it to bolster the prestige of his own Icelandic contemporaries,

2.2.2 Frceg() and Mnral Qualities. In Alexanders saga the desire for renown is an important motivating factor, and one whic~ is frequently associated with good moral qualities. It goes hand In hand with generosity. for example, as can be seen in the speech that Alexander makes immediately before the decisive ~attle of Arbela and in which he puts spirit in his men by assurmg th~m that they can have all the booty for themselves as well as taking shares with him in Jrccgd (AS 742-5; A/s IY.S76-78):

Sigret at eins mer til handa, en sciptet feno mea yor. Hverr sa er Sva vill beriaz at mer like seal vera felage minn vrn fr~goena. en taka til sin alit annat.

Mueh the same sentiment, stated even more clearly, had already been expressed by Alexander before the Battle of Issus (AS 3531-

11

Fra:goar/Qr -' . . Ilk Iy to

- a Journey or expedition of renown'. i.e, one that IS I e

grant renown to th .• the word,

, . e person who undertakes It; or. as C V glosses ,

an exploit' S I k.' feat

( . . ee a so jra'Rc)arsko/ 'a famous shot', jra'w)arver' a

cited by CV) andfi " , , ., -' ). also the

" rtCRoarvl,w/omr = berommclig visdom (I' ntz. , ,

pe Joratt ve term fi ' " I' " • d which

F:" ra:guar auss, which CV glosses as 'lI1glonous an

ritz. gives as a:rel¢s.

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

63

361; Als II.485-86): At fullo vinnz mer agetio eitt saman. fiarens ann ec yor en mer fregoarennar. What needs to be understood in order to appreciate these speeches properly is that, in offering wealth to his men in this way, Alexander is following the moral advice expounded by Aristotle, who tells him to give treasure open-handedly to his knights and so to anoint their wounds with gifts (AS 614-15; Als 1.146-48; see 3.2.7 below): it is perfectly right that the ordinary man should need and receive this kind of encouragement; but for Alexander himself, that most extraordinary of men, renown matters far more than wealth, and the love of renown obliterates greed.

Similarly, renown matters more than life, and the love of renown obliterates the fear of death; so the desire for jrcego also goes hand in hand with courage. In this connection, since Alexander never actually loses a fight, it falls to Darius to articulate the so-called heroic code in its purest form when he is facing total defeat and must either stand and fight or slink away in shame; at this moment he shows his mettle, fleetingly, and urges his men to a desperate last stand: (AS 9513-14; Als VI.369): Jaet sigr mea somo, he commands them, eoa Jallet mea frega.

Alexander himself, though always successful in his battles, is no stranger to the possibility of imminent death; but the risk to his own person is never allowed to interfere with the work of conquest since he values renown more than long life, as the Old Norse translator says of him with evident approval in the description of the siege of Gaza, where Alexander is wounded but goes on to kill the enemy leader with his own hands (AS 504-6):

En poat hann he fOe fengit .ii. sar pa leggr hann eigi nior at helldr vpptekna syslo. pviat hann hiroer mein urn frega en langlife.

Here the reference to renown is the translator's own addition to a passage in which the Latin (Als 111.367-68) refers only to Alexander's being 'prodigal with the breath of life' tprodigus aurae I Vitalis).

64

DAVID ASllURST

2,2,3 Moral Amhiv'll' . '['I ()I

f ' • ence, IC d Norse translator's note

o approval 111 connc 't' , I

b c Ion WIt I the last-mentioned text needs

to e borne in rni I I > ' ,

, 111( W icn Intcrprctlllg a later and slightly more

ambIguous pas sag , I ' I

. . e 111 w lIC 1 two young men decide to lead an

attack on their I d' , ,

hi n Jan enemies despite the fact that Alexander and

IS army seem to be t 'I

v di emporan y stalled: latom ocr meira pickia

n tr vm_frf{go, en langlive, says one to the other (AS 13121•22 condenslllg Als IX 96 99 ' ,

ad' - ) to justify a rash venture, 12 Their cour-

ge an prowess result '

leads th 111 success at first, but the success itself

the' ,e young men to delay their withdrawal as they crow over ir VIctorY' and so th f II ' ,

may th l" ey a vicnrn to enemy reinforcements, It

erelore be said th t th I

gives oc ' a e ove of renown, in this passage,

cas IOn to folly d '

be observ d h an pride; but against this it must also

e t at the you '

desire s: the: ng men achieve the renown that they

,lor err death i I b' '

both th' s ce e rated WIth the greatest pathos III

e epic and the t M '

love' (a t hei saga, ouvated, unusually by 'fervent

s en eit AS 13221) ,

the very last . h .s c=: , each man defends his comrade to

IX. 137-38)' WIt ~ut thought for his own safety (AS 13225.26; Als

. kepplZ ~ hvas {', {',' (f,

en sialvom tram jyrtr annan. oc vill ()()rom hll.Ja

ser ecke Ad'

or as Walt .' n 111 the end they go together til heljar

, er puts It the k .

the Elysian F' Id' Y rna e their way by the narrow path to

ie s (AS 13230.31.

of Courage and I' ' Als IX. 146-47). The strengths

c OVe, It Would . h

raults of folly d nrl seem, are more Important than t e

an pride,

The episode of the tw '

prefigures in v . 0 young men is significant because It

, anous way h

the end of hi s, w at happens to Alexander towards

IS career and ' .

rash but herol' .' 111 partIcular it foreshadows his own

c act III leapi d

the Sudracae wh he i ng own, alone, into the citadel of

f -wnere e IS w d

o ten asked shoun ed and almost killed. Men have

, ays t e autho f '

act Was boldne r 0 Alexanders saga whether thIS

, ss Or a bad bl "

M(elstare) G(alt) under. The answer' iamt beoe segit

W erus (AS 13931 • ,

alter and his transl t ." Als IX.373). In declaring this.

ambivalence which ~ ~r are hIghlighting the moral and practical

__ IS III the v

12 See A h ery nature of courage and hence

S urst (2002) f

ultimat or an extensi di . .

e SOurce in Virgil' A ,ve ISCUSSlon of this episode and of Its

s ene/d,

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

65

in that love of renown which fosters courage, Those who seek renown, they imply, may well commit errors of this kind; but the errors will be the errors of courage and will still have its splendour. The account of the Sudracan catastrophe and its aftermath, therefore, ultimately places emphasis on the love of renown as something that matters more even than good generalship, for when Alexander has been rescued and is recovering from his wounds, his own men upbraid him with recklessly endangering them all, as they will soon fall prey to their enemies if they lose their great leader, but Alexander replies with a now familiar sentiment (AS 14329.31 condensing Als IX.553-56): Hiroe ec eigi 11111 langlife. undir pvi bycke mer at fregoen fare eigi imolld mer) lIler.13 This statement hardly addresses the men's concerns and yet it carries weight; for by the end of his speech Alexander has put new heart into the troops, who had previously been dismayed and demoralised, and they declare with one voice that they will follow him wherever he chooses to lead (AS 14417•18; Als IX,578- 79). Finally, in this connection, it should be noted that the situation which has just been described is paralleled in accounts of the life and death of the Norwegian king Magnus berfcettr, including the one in Heimskringla, where it is said that the king's men complain of his recklessness in war and Magnus makes a reply that is very similar to Alexander's (Snorri Sturluson 1941-51, III 237):

Pat herma menn fra oroum hans, pa er vinir hans mreltu, at hann for opt ovarliga, er hann herjaoi iitan lands, hann sagoi sva: 'Til fnegoar skal konung hafa, en ckki til langlffis.'

It is possible, of course, that the originators of this story about Magnus modelled it on the passage in the Alexandreis or in some

13 The Latin text runs thus:

non me capit etas, Sed neque me spacio etatis uellegibus eui Metior. excedit eui mea gloria metas.

Hec sola est, uestrum metiri qua uolo regem.

Length of years does not attract me, neither do I measure myself by a span of life or by the laws of time. My glory exceeds the frontiers of time, and it is by this alone that I wish your king to be measured. (Prit.)

66

DAVID ASHURST

other Latin account of AI" I" I' .. ,

, cxanc er; anc since Snorri indicates

that men recall' th . "

< e saYlllg, It IS also possible that the author of

Alexanders saga remembered it and turned it to his own purP?ses on the three occasions when he used the fame/long-life

dIchotomy in h' , d: .

. IS own a aptation of Walter's text. Much more

Important ,than the possible relationship between the passages,

however IS the fa t th . h

' c at in t e story of Magnus we have an

example of an adrni d ( h h

. Ire t oug not a much loved) Christian king

makmg a statement hi h .

. W IC people in the thirteenth century con-

sidered to be notew rth d .

o y an which embodies an ethical judge-

m~nt to the effect that to prefer renown to long life even to the

point of recklessne . '

1) h '. ss, was appropnate behaviour for himself and

or ot er ChnstJan kings.I"

2,204 Frrego a d L'~ f

th t th I n I eater Death. It can be seen, then,

a e ove of reno

II wn, as opposed to renown itself may be

~ora hY' ambivalent even within the secular framework of war-

ror et ICS but that th I "

d d' on e w role It IS endorsed rather than con-

emne , From am'

. ore stnngently Christian, ecclesiastical per-

spectIve and viewed . I .

• W} specie aeternitatis it must of course,

appear as a worldly thi J hich i '

Thi , II1g w Ich IS therefore a danger to the soul.

IS IS not generaII ki

s ' y spea mg, the view-point of Alexanders

aga on the subject' hI' h

Al der ' , nevert cess there is one occasion on whic

exan er s love of '

In th At . renown IS seen in the light of the eternal.

e exandrels the . . k . , . h

Context f ISsue IS ept unambiguously within t e

o pagan my tho I h '

successe " ogy w en Alexander, before his maIll

s, VISIts the tomb f hi ki d

expresses 4' 0 IS msman Achilles near Troyan

a lear that he mav noi a-t.: f

the Ho' . ay not achieve fame similar to that 0

menc warnor (Als 1.490-92):

Post m rt ho~ unum michi deesse tirnebo Eli .. a em cmerl ne desit farna sepulto '

ISlIsque uelim s 1 h '

o am anc preponere campis.

14 Agrip (1995, 66) sums hi

eyddi ollum viki irn up thus: [Harm] fridar)i vel fyr landi sinu, ok

tngum ok utile' k

starfsamr. g umonnum, ok var maar herskdr ok roskr 0

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

67

Yet will I fear the lack of this one thing after death - that fame may not attend my buried ashes; this alone would I prefer to the Elysian fields. (prit.)

Here Alexander is certainly putting a high premium on fame and appears, at first glance, to be saying that rather than give up fame in this world he would forego eternal happiness after death. Elysium was, of course, conceived as the blessed part of the underworld described by Virgil (1934-35, Aeneid VI.637-65; and named as Elysium in VI.744), who also states that there is a place in the nether regions where the road forks: the right hand way leads souls to Elysium, 'but the left wreaks the punishment of the wicked, and sends them on to pitiless Tartarus' (at laeva malorum I exercet poenas, et ad impia Tartara mittit - VI.542-43, trans. Fairclough). A Latin-literate audience, however, could be expected to realise that within the pagan mythological and philosophical frameworks Alexander had open to him more possibilities than just the serenity of Elysium or the sufferings of Tartarus. Readers of Ovid, to name a Classical author who was among the best-known in the Middle Ages, would be aware that Alexander could be deified and translated into the stars like his supposed ancestor Hercules (Metamorphoses 1916, IX.250-72) or indeed like Julius Caesar (XV.816-21 and Xy'840-51); readers of the fragment of Cicero's De re publica known as Somnium Scipionis or of Macrobius's highly influential commentary on it would find it declared that all those who have preserved, aided, or enlarged their fatherland have a special place prepared for them in the heavens (in caeloi, where they may enjoy an etemallife of happiness (De re publica 1928, VI.xiii; Macrobius 1981, Liv-l); and readers of De bello civili, Walter's main epic model, would know that Lucan (1928, IX.5-9) says that the souls of virtuous heroes ascend to the interface between the upper atmosphere and the lower limits of bright aether, a region that coincides with the orbit of the moon. A little thought, therefore, reveals that in the Latin text Alexander is not, in fact, saying that he could willingly be damned for the sake of fame,

6X

DAVID ASflPRST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

69

In Alexw/{/C'rs S(/~(/ howev,» I .

Elysium is '1" ' . ' C\CI, t ic reference to the pagan

x e 1I111nated III 'I r, tl .. . .:

ground at I., , ' d ICI cur IOUS way that seems to fore·

, edst ll10mentari Iy , CI.·· .

making AI ' d ,d insuan view of the matter by

cxan cr say tho t I . I . ,

Heaven tha I k c a rc wou d rather miss the kingdomol

n acx lame if I . I d

ef ec s III ,Ie la to make the choice (AS 1621.2~:

cy aa annal's hvars I '1

en jrceg'\a IS s. »a \'{ Ida ec himinrikes helldr missa

u rennar .. The Old

was frequentl I . Norse word himinrtki used here

y emp oyed r . . . . ,

term derived f h In re igrous wntrng» as a Christie

rom t eGos I f M

eschatological ." pe a atthew, where it signifies the

communIty of th d 16' .'

revealed c e re eemed. This meamng IS

. ' lor example, b M ..

Impressed by the faith y att~ew 8: II In which Jesus, deeply

of a GentIle, asserts the following (BS):

Dieo autem vobl . .

et recumbent IS, quod multi ab oriente et occidente venient,

rum. cum Abraham, et Jsaac, ct Jacob in regno caelo-

I say unto you l'h'

, dt many sh: II . r

and shall sit d ' xna come rom the cast and west,

ki . OWn with Abn f ' '

rngdom of h " 1"111, and Isaac and Jacob In the

caven. (1\ V) "

--

15 Th h

e ot er notabl .

elimi e occasIOn on whicl I

. nated the term 'EI . , ' IC I t ie author of Alexandcrs saga has

tlOned' 2 ysrurn IS in th .

16 In .2.3. 'e episode of the two young men men-

Barlaams ok 1

in h osaphats saga (185 I

g t e Day ofJudgeme t h ,34), for example, declares that follow-

to be b n t e soul f '

. '. urnt, and adds' J.. k So evil people will be gathered together

tnrlkl In thi . pa s olu rettvi " , '

hi IS saga which' li tstr me/Ill skina scm sol scelega [him-

~~rteent? century (RindaII: 9~kely to be Norwegian from the middle of the

deaven as both a plac d 3, 36), the term himinrtki therefore signifies

re eemed Mean a stat f

. uch the sam . eo eternal blessedness enjoyed by the

POstola II (P e meamng" r

12:2-4 w Ost~/a s6gltr 1874 2 IS Im.p led by a passage in Pdls s,aga

b P here SaInt Paul st t ' 68) which depends upon 2 CorinthIans

e au] him I a es that he k

word . se f, who Was cau h . new a man, usually understood to

h s WhICh it is not la~f I ; t up Into the third Heaven and there heard

onum vceri 1. u lor any h

him' (1. I pa synt himi,lrl'k' ' uman to utter; the saga declares a/

IIIn"i in I and gi r thi f

tv . space: En J1vi I" ves t IS explanation of the position a

elm, er aiJ er llnllnrik' J" .

eilitr r voru nefndir. k 1 enn mill hlminn, at pat er yflr jlelm

Urar stelu I. . ,0 sa Pallp I" '

, pelrar er vera ska . osto I himneska dyrt) ok leynda lull

I eptlr domsdag.

Understood in this way, the word himinriki in the mouth of Alexander seems anachronistic and illogical, since the Macedonian was a pre-Christian pagan and as such had no possibility of entering the kingdom of Heaven. The word is used again, however, in Alexander's final speech, where it corresponds to Walter's term 'Olympus', which the dying Alexander says he now expects to rule (AS 15319-21; Als X.405-07; see 8.4.6): heoan ifra man ec raoa fyrir himinriki. oc samir mer eigi at drepa hende vic) beire sv;11l0 er ec em til kallaor. Since Alexander then names Jupiter and Mars as those with whom he will share the management of the place, it is clear that the audience of Alexanders saga must have understood that himinriki, in this context, signifies the abode of the pagan gods. And this is exactly the meaning of the word as it is used in some manuscripts of the Prose Edda, including the Codex Wormianus (AM 242, fol) which was written circa 1350 (ONP Registre 1989,387); Snorri, or more likely a redactor, explains in these manuscripts that Saturnus divided his realm between his sons (Snorri Sturluson 1924, 5): ok skipaoi hann Jupiter himinsiki enn Neptuno iardriki en Pluto heluiti.l! Given that Alexander is explicitly and unmistakably pagan, it is entirely possible, consequently, that the word himinriki was immediately understood in this pagan sense when used by Alexander in his speech over the tomb of Achilles, or that people who were familiar with the saga took this meaning from the death speech and read it back into the earlier context; and if this were so, the anachronism and illogicality would disappear, for Alexander would then be saying that he would rather possess earthly fame than share in the government of Olympus. As in the Latin source, he would not, according to this interpretation, be saying anything about the possibility of his damnation, because he would be able to miss Olympus and yet go to the region of the underworld inhabited by virtuous pagans - or indeed to the upper atmosphere, for those who knew their Lucan. But many a person in the early audience of the saga would no doubt have accepted

17 Compare with a similar statement made in the Hauksbok redaction of Trojumanna saga, quoted in 7.3.3.

70

DAVID ASIIIJJ{ST

the Christian connot' t' , t'/' , "

, a Ions 0 uminrik] alone with the anachro-

rusm, and have concluded that the speech at the tomb of Achilles

marked Alexander as a ldl

' wor y man whose heart was perilously set on worldly things.

2.2,5 The Efficac f F J.

the 'I' yo < raieo. Despite the moral errors and

pracnca mIstakes' t hi

mow ich the love of fuego could lead a man on occasion jr 0'

b I ' ceg Itself remained a good that was to

e va ued by those wh '

223 b . 0 possessed It, as discussed in 2.2,1 and

. " ecause It bestowed .

also us fIb ' prestige; but to the warrior it was

e u ecause It sp d f

himself t h snrea ear among his enemies, Alexander

ouc es upon this ' , hi ,

When he dd ' point in ighly rhetorical fashion

a resses hIS men t ti d

is still to c bl a a irnc When he has been sick an

o lee e to bear a 'b '. ,

battle' his ' < rrns, ut IS Impatient for a return to

, renown IS Such tho t h

forefrontofh' ' a e need only show himselfatthe

exp di IS men, he says, and the enemy will flee (AS 2522-26 an Illg Als II,215-17):

Oc vist pickc mer b: 'd' . ,

hcfi h " ru aga Ircstin vcrrc, ell siuclcikr sa cr cc

, pVlat pott cc sia " k

rnec f , ' , Sill roc cc mega ccki annat gcra cn syna

c rrc rmnnc fylki h ' <

ngo, pa mono pcgar ovinir varir flyia.

This is of course an ex

are many in Al ample of a heroic boast, of which there

exanders sa d d

among the indi ga an also many more scattere

the boast shouIlgdenous Icelandic sagas (Toom 1955, 94-95); but

not be dis ' d C

example cent . . rnrsse as empty. Gyoinga saga, lor

. ' alllS an ep de i ,

flIght by nothi ISO e III which an entire army is put to

. ng more than th I"

IS present amo h e rea isauon that Judas Maccabeus

ng t e opp . c

Enn er beir k osmg rorces (GyMnga saga 1995, 33):

J, enna at Mach b

pegar. ok allr h h a eus var par komis. flyr thimotheus

Could not be d anbs "": The historical validity of this statement

b' . ou ted III th M'd

Ibhcal authority b . e I dle Ages since it is backed by

Et cognOverllnt ' erng a paraphrase of I Maccabees 5:34 (BS): llgerllnt afiacl'e ~astra Timothei quia Machabaeus est et ref-

. eius 'A d . ,

It Was Maccabe ' n the forces of Timotheus realised that

-------=- us, and they fl d b

18 Th e efore his face.' 18 The basis on

e author of Gyr'J '

sage f tnga saga rathe 'I

rom 2 Maccabees lOr SPOI s the point by then importing a pas-

to the effect that three shining warriors appeared

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

71

which Judas is so easily able to terrorise his enemies is, naturally, the renown acquired in previous battles, which has already been emphasised in a passage originally intended as a song of praise (Gydinga saga 1995,20; 1 Maccabees 3:9): hann verdr nu skiott frcegr. bcedi vtan land: ok innan. And the army which his fame thus terrorises, it must be noted, is a large one; for in the ensuing rout, Judas and his forces manage to kill some eight thousand men (Gydinga saga 1995, 34: 1 Maccabees 5:34). It is still a very long leap, of course, from such an account of panic seizing an army to the statement in Alexanders saga that all the unconquered nations of the world capitulated because of Alexander's renown; but the underlying principle is the same, and it may be argued that the effects of Alexander's renown only exceed those of Judas's fame in proportion to Alexander's military achievements, which likewise dwarf those of the Jewish hero. But in any case, readers of Alexanders saga do not have to make the leap all in one, for Walter and his Old Norse translator have already applied the principle to a smaller, though still very important, event that foreshadows the general capitulation of the free world, namely the surrender of several eastern states following the conquest of Scythia. Heavy emphasis is placed on the astounding nature of Alexander's victory and on the effect which the news of it brought about in the minds of neighbouring peoples (AS 1298- 15; Als VIII.496-505):

Nu spyriaz pessi tioende urn heimenn at Alexander konungr hevir unnet Scithiam. oc pviat engi demi funduz til at nockor maar hefoe fyn undir sec lagt petta land er pat fole byoir er varla finnz haroara undir heimsolenne pa pyckir pat liclict flestum er spyria at ongom myne tioa via honom at risa. oc fyrir pessa soc gevaz margir Ivalld hans sialfkrafa peir er aor hofoo ecke pat firir ser etlat,

alongside Judas and contributed to the flight of his enemies. The logic, however, must be that this only occurred once Timotheus and his army had begun to flee, otherwise the preceding statement, that they fled as soon as they knew that Judas was present, would be vacuous.

72

DAVID ASIlURST

The saga recapitulates the sentiments of this passage almost immediately, when Alexander is making his way into India (AS 1307-12; Ais IX.35-40):

pegar er Indi verda varir via at Alexander konungr nalgaz meo her sinn taka margir pat radpvia: pcir hafa spurt at hann hevir ~ sigr. hvar sem hann snertr via mea pat frekna lio er honom fylgir. at beir fara [mot honom oe Irida fyrir ser. gefa borgir sinar oc sialfa sec Ivalld hans.

Such heavy adumbration may perhaps indicate a certain anxiety, o~. the part of Walter and his translator, concerning the plausibility of what is said about the ultimate capitulation of the free world; but more directly it indicates that the writers are striving hard to prepare for that ultimate event and to make it plausible for. us. It shows that they want us to he convinced by it, and to believe that those Whom Alexander did not conquer with point and edge he overcame through renown.

2.3 Hamingja

2.3.1 The Boethian Image of Fortuna. The representation of. Fortuna as a goddess who turns a wheel and so lifts human ~emgs up to the heights of success or throws them down into ruin IS one of the great commonplaces of the Middle Ages; as Lewis (1964,82) puts it, 'Medieval allusions to Fortune and her wheel are exceptional in their frequency and seriousness.' The image stems principally from Boethius's Consolation oj Philosophy (De consolatione hit I . . .) a

b '. P 1 asap uae or Plzilosophiae consolationis ,

ook cited III twelfth-century Norway by Theodoricus Monachus

(1998, .1) for example, that 'was considered essential for almost every library from th C· ". nth e drollllgJan period through the fourtee

century' (Bower 1983, 292).

hi It is.highly likely that the author of Alcxanders saga expected

IS audIence to be I d c ". . ta-

. a rea y lamIlJar with the Boethian represen

Ftlon and all that goes with it, since he introduced the personified ortuna for the fi t ti . . . t krs nne, under the name hamingja, without a

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

73

ing the trouble to explain who the figure is or what she signifies (AS 2426-27), whereas in the case of such pagan deities as Venus and Bacchus, whom one would expect to be well known, he had felt obliged to supply the information that they were the patrons of wine and love (AS 77-8; see Als 1.167). The Alexanders saga passage that introduces Fortuna, like the corresponding lines from the Alexandreis, not only makes use of the stock representation of the goddess but also includes direct allusions to the second book of the Consolation (Boethius, 1973): 19 as well as turning her wheel (AS 2426-27; Als 11.186), which is mentioned ~n Consolation II, metrum 1, but which would be likely to appear III any description of Fortuna, the goddess complains that mankind blames her for whatever goes wrong (AS 2428-32; Als II. 190-95; Consolation II, prosa 2, lines 3 and 16-21), which is precisely how the Macedonian rank and file behave when Alexander is dangerously ill after a dip in the chilly waters of the Cignus (AS 2414-18; Ais 11.175-80); Fortuna also notes that other powers can do as they please with regard to mankind but that people blame her alone, or expect her alone to restrain herself, if conditions are. not pleasing (AS 2430-32; Als 11.192-95; Consolation II, prosa 2, lines 21-28); and she asserts that Natura made her innately inconstant (AS 255-7; Als 11.199-200), picking up a comment in Consolation II, prosa 1, lines 29-31, to the effect that inconstancy.is her very nature (Hi semper eius mores sunt ista natura). ThIS c~~pl~x of ideas linking Natura with Fortuna was probably familiar III Iceland or at least became so by the late fourteenth century, if we may judge from the version of Oldfs saga Tryggvasonar fou~d in Flateyjarbok (1944-45, I 99), where the, men of an unspecI~ed Wendish city justify their capitulation to Olafr with the following remark, which similarly links Natura with Fortuna, her wheel and her inconstancyr'"

19 Note that the numerical references in what follows are to the line numberings as printed in this particular edition and not to the sentence or paragraph numbers.

20 See 2.3.8 for further discussion of this passage.

74

DAVID ASHlJRST

Viljum ver taka annat ni<1 1 ... 1 Iwi at bat gerir oss samvizkan at skilja, at po at eftir booi ruitturunnar haf farsrelan ass fylgjusom vcrit, pa er mcd engu mati treystanda a hennar hverfanda hvel, pvi at pat kann oft undan veIta, pa er minnst varir, ok til marks at syna yarn goovilja gefum ver upp yam stao.

2.3.2 Corrupting Influence. The idea that good fortune is potentially a corrupting influence occurs several times in Curt., for instance at I1I.ii.18, where an unjustly punished general says to Darius:

Tu quidem licentia regni tam subito rnutatus documentum eris posteris, homines, cum se permisere Fortunac, etiam naturam dediscere.

You for your part, so suddenly changed by the licence of royal power, will be a lesson to coming generations that when men ha~e surrendered thcrnscl vcs to Fortune, they forget even their very nature. (Rolfe)

At VIII' 24" .

. IV. It IS said that the beautiful Roxane, soon to be

Alexander's wife, captivated the eyes of all men, 'especially of ~he king, who by now had less mastery over his passions ~mId the constant indulgence of Fortune' (maxime regis, minus lam cupiditatibus suis imperantis inter obsequia Fortunae _ ~rans. Rolfe). These passages themselves do not find a place III Alexanders saga, but the theme is echoed there somewhat problematically, when it is said that Fortuna began to spoil Alexander's nat f h . I h

ure a ter t e capture of so much Persian wea t

(AS 4523-27• Al 1112' .. 21

' S . 45-49 which elaborates Curt. III.xlI.20):

En sloan er fenginn audr Scrkia oc pcira bilive gal' 6vena framgang [ ... ] pa tok hamingian at spilla nattvrunne. OC lestir at stemma kraptanna ras oc pcirn aptr at snua.

21 The ramifications ofth'

IS passage are discussed in 5.4.2.

\ :,;

~.;L_~. _

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

75

Outside of Alexanders saga, this theme of the potentially corrupting influence of Fortuna was certainly known to the Old Norse world at a fairly early date, and was probably quite familiar to audiences there in the thirteenth century, since it occurs in the Latin Elucidarius and in its Old Norse translation, where the blandishments of good luck are compared to the bait used to catch fish (Elucidarius 1989, 100-01, corresponding to II.16 of the Latin text on the same pages):22

I

I

11

!

I

1 I ·1

I

1

!

I

1

I

1

I

1

1.,1

II !

!

I

II,'

I t I

i ,I

II

" ~

!

l

r

I

II

t, ,J

i I ! I I ! f

~;

Da er hamingia her pia illv ok fyfcr pa gooa Ilikra lvta fcm bv tal I oer pa likiaz peir fifki peim er fagnar litilli beitv ok pcro: hann pa dieiginn vpp O! vattni.

2.3.3 Defences against the Blandishments of Fortuna. It is not inevitable in Latin or Latin-derived texts, however, that a person who experiences good fortune will be corrupted by it. The first step in a moral defence is to understand that the wheel of Fortuna will go on turning; the man who always remembers this will avoid becoming attached to the success which will vanish, and he will be proof against despair and rage when the bad times succeed the good: as Boethius says in the Consolation (1973, II, prosa 2, 31-32, trans. Tester), putting the words into the mouth of Fortuna herself, Ascende si placet, sed ea lege ne utique cum ludicri mei ratio poscet, descendere iniuriam putes, 'Go up, if you will, but on this condition, that you do not really think it wrong to have to go down again whenever the course of my sport demands.' It is on the basis of this quintessentially Stoic ethic that Theodoricus Monachus (1880, 60; trans. 1998, 48-49) heaps praise on Charles the Great for remaining unshaken by presentiments of his death: Invictte enim virtutis in ipso insigne emicuit, qua animi prcestantia non minus prospera quam adversa calcavit, 'For the mark of indomitable virtue shone in him, and

22 The quotation comes from MS AM 675 4to, which is dated to th~ early fou.rteenth century (Elucidarius 1989, xxvii); but since it accords WIth the L~tm text it was presumably part of the original translation. The relevant section has been lost from MS AM 674a 4to, dated to 1200 or earlier (p. xxvii).

76

DAVID ASIIURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

77

with that superiority of spirit he disdained both good fortune and bad.' Similarly in Alexander.l· saga the Maccdonian king, now ruler of all the world, shows himself to be able to let go of good fortune and to be free from despair or bitterness when the onset of death pitches him down from the pinnacle of success (AS 15315-17; Als X.399-403):

suggests that they should launch a night attack - an unheroic and indeed immoral act according to the ethics of diverse military societies.P Alexander retorts with characteristic vigour, emphasising heroic codes of conduct and showing that he values the ethics of war more than the blandishments of Fortuna (AS 6728-31; Als IV.363-64):

Yfret lenge hefe ec nu raoct fire iaroriki. hefir hamingian ecke sparat vid mec til pessa heims metnadar. Lciocz mer nu at ond min se lengr Iuco idauolegvm licam.

betr ben peim er konungr seal heita at hamingian breste fire sakir annstreymra orlaga. heIIdr en hann scammez pess sigrs er hann for a nattar pele med pioflegom alaupom.

This speech is, of course, shot through with irony since Alex-

ander hopes now t . . .

o partIcIpate III the government of Heaven;

nevertheless it remains a valid point that he calmly and resolutely accepts the change to his earthly fortune which dashes his plans for further conquests.

. Disdain for the vagaries of Fortuna, whilst a virtue in its own righr, may be stiffened by calling upon other virtues in support,

as when Techilus 0 ' f I G . I

. ., ne 0 t ic Jrecks who have been hideous Y

mutIlated by the P .: . .'

ersrans 1I1 Alcxanders saga, declares that no

decent man would d .' . . it

hi espise hIS friend because of a calamI Y

w ich had befallen him, and adds the following (AS 931-3; Als VI.268-69):

By making this assertion, Alexander demonstrates that he is by no means afraid of Fortuna's reversals or depraved by overattachment to her gifts, and that he maintains his independence from her, like Techilus, through an appropriate sense of selfesteem and an appeal to ethical values. This appears all the more impressive and significant when it is considered that this battle, which Alexander is prepared to countenance losing for the sake of a moral judgement, is the decisive one which actually gives him control of the Persian Empire but which could equally well have seen his army obliterated.

2.3.4 Valuing Fortuna. Despite what has just been said, it would be quite wrong to give the impression that Alexander is portrayed in Alexanders saga as despising Fortuna or regarding

ilIz eins kalla e h . c. • s

c pann maklegan cr hann scammaz sialfs sm

oc hardrar ham' . f h

ingio e ann helldr manndomenom.

23 In the account of a night attack committed by Nisus and Euryalus in the Aeneid, for example, Virgil (1934-35) underlines the ethical dubiousness of the act by referring to it as furtum, 'a secret action, a trick' (OLD furtum 2 and 3; Aeneid IX.350) and by having Nisus himself call it fraus, 'an offence, an instance of deceit' (OLD fraus 3 and 5; Aeneid IX.428; and see Farron 1993,4-10). There is also evidence that thirteenth-century audiences in both Norway and Iceland, like Romans of the Classical period, were aware of a moral prohibition against such attacks. In the Norwegian Fagrskinna (1985, 343), Erlingr jarl skakki refrains from leading his troops under cover of darkness in an assault on Sigurdr a Reyri, stating that such an attack would be nioingskapr eoa moroingja verk, and making the following declaration:

Skulum vir heldr hafa pat raoit, er oss er kunnara, at berjask um /j6sa daga mea fylkingu ok stelask eigi a menn um natr. Snorri Sturluson (1941-51, III 387) includes a version of the same speech in the Icelandic Heimskringla.

Here Techilus" ki h I

h. IS IllVO rug a due and proper self-respect to e p

IS comrades a hi h '

crneve t e necessary detachment from Fortuna s

assaults The st df . ith

. . ea ast VIrtues in this case those 'lssociated WI

fnend hi ." (. . <.

S . IP. and decent pride, are being placed in opposition to the uncertamtles of I k: h

th uc . t ey help one to transcend fortune because

ey are more im rt h . it

h . po ant t an fortune. This attitude of mind, as I

appens, IS exhib't d i . If . I e III paramount degree by Alexander hlmse at a crucIal mom t i hi .

~ . h en III IS career, When he is planning his tactICS

lor t e Battle f A b .

orela. Parmenion Alexander's most senIor

general, seeing th t h' d

ate Macedonians are vastly outnumbere ,

78

DAVID ASHURST

her favours as of no account. The high value that he habitually

set u h . . die . .

pon er IS In reared In a passage that recounts an earlier

differe f oni b . . .

nee 0 OpInIOn etween him and his second-in-command:

in exchange for a truce, Darius has offered to give Alexander the half of the Persian Empire that has already been conquered, and Parmenion thinks that the offer should be accepted; but ~Iexander disagrees. Mer er ecki falt, he states in true aristocratIC fashion, oc vei veroe beim er sel! Izamingio sina (AS 6031-32). Here we see Alexander not only affirming that Fortuna may be an asset, almost as if a man can have property rights on her, but

also declaring im I' itl hi . .

. ' P ICI y, IS confidence III her continued bless-

mg for himself.

Much the s " I'

arne IS Imp led, though a little less directly, by the

corresponding Source text (Als rV.137-38):

rcgcm me glorior esse

Non mercatorelll. fort II 11 nc ucnditor absit.

I pride mysel f bci . . h

• 011 elllg a king, not a tradesman. Away WIt

the vendor of Fortune!

Like its Old N .

horse equivatem, the Latin text seems to suggest

t at, for rbetor: I b

rca purposes at least, fortune or Fortuna can e

owned; but the b

fi a sence of a possessive pronoun in the phrase

ortunae uendii . . d' .

. hi I or IS III icative of a difference between the ways

In w ich 'fort ' .

L ti une was most characteristically thought of III

a In and Old N .

2 orse, as dIscussed next.

.3.5 The ReJat' h' II

. . IOns Ip of a Man with Fortuna and am-

lI1gja.Agood d I h b . d

o . . ea as een wntten on the meanings, usages an

ngm of the term h . . .

h b' anungjn, In particular, much consideratIon

as een gIven to th l' II . . d

t c e 10 owing Issues: the frequency an con-

exrs lor the use of h . "

natural bei anlll1&la III a personal sense to mean a super-

fy. I ., emg external to man, accompanying him as a kind of gja (Hallberg 1973 I f

". b ' 53) as opposed to its' abstract senses 0

III orn force lu k'" (T . id

of I k . ' c urvllle-Pctre 1964,230); whether the I ea

uc eXIsted at II' . d

a III Old Norse heathenism or was derIve

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

79

from Christian and Classical concepts; and the ways in which luck relates to kingship - especially sacral kingship.P' This is not the place to re-open the debate on these issues for they are not determinative for the present discussion. Instead, what follows until the end of this sub-chapter (2.3) explores the ethical implications of how Old Norse literature in contrast to Latin presents the relationship between a man and luck, above all as regards the contexts in which he can morally 'trust to luck' or seek to influence luck, the extent to which being lucky is a credit to him, and the proper attitude he must take towards luck and the divine will.

A characteristic and, I suggest, highly significant difference between Old Norse and Latin usage is that phrases such as min hamingja or hamingja konungsins, implying that hamingja is attached to an individual, are very common in Old Norse; but the equivalent formula is very much less usual in Latin. Instances of fortuna used in a way similar to that of Old Norse and coupled with a possessive pronoun or governed by a genitive do indeed Occur in Latin texts, as indicated by the OLD gloss (fortuna 4), which says 'Good fortune regarded as an attribute of generals, etc., luck; -am (suam) sequi, to be led by one's luck,' and which gives as an example a quotation from Curt. V.viii.9 where the twice defeated Darius praises his men in the following words:

Meam fortunam tamen quam victoris maluistis sequi, 'In spite of this, you have preferred to follow my fortune rather than the victor's' (trans. Rolfe). It so happens that the passage in the Alexandreis which is derived from this speech omits the reference to jortuna (Als VI.321-23), but an instance of the word governed by a genitive occurs in another speech by Darius, this time one that is Walter's own invention and which oddly enough suggests the Old Norse concept of transferable luck (discussed below in

24 See Baetke (1942, 66-68, 137-38; 1952, 50-ff; 1964,38,67-68), Ejerfeldt (1969-70), Gronbech (1932, I 127-74), Hallberg (1966), Lonnroth (1963- 64), McTurk (1974-77; 1993; 1994-97), Picard (1991, 22-26, 33), Rieger (1898), Steinsland (1991, 351-52), Strom (1967), Turville-Petre (1940) and de Vries (1956a; 1956b, I 222-24).

80

n A V J n ,\ Slit I H S T

2.3. 7): Darius tries to CIIC' ur. I . . I I" .

" 0 Ir.tgc liS men 1y c amung that King

~yrus, though dead, reigns again in him, 'and in the living man

lives the Fortune of the b "I' ( . , '.. ,

uncc et III 111110 111111/ fortuna sepulti-

Als II.347). This is of cou " . ' k . ,

. . " rsc, a JO .c at the expense of Danus s

mIserable oratory' hi .tate - - .

. . IS s atcment IS nonsensical and ill-ornered

smce the fortune of the buried is to be dead. I-Iere the Old Norse translator captures the polyptoton but loses the joke (AS 3025): oc at mer livand, I"

a tvtr enn hans IIamin!-:ia. There is another

example ofjortun lif db

h a qua I re y a genitive in Alexandreis 1.478,

Were the Ma d . ki

I . ce Oman II1g stands over the tomb of Achilles and

exc aims Ofi t ..

. ,or una utrt superexcellclI/ior, 'Oh the too surpass-

mgly excellent fort f h '

une 0 ternan! The many examples, how-

ever, accompanyin th I .

LS h g e g osses for fortuna in the OLD and m

s ow that in Lati I' - ,

• c 111 Itcrature as a whole the word occurs With

a possessIve pronoun . -. . . . f

or" genitive In only a small minority 0

cases. In Old No - _. .

. rse s<lgas deriver] from Latin, on the other hand,

expressIOns such .' r I .

L ti " <IS 11/11/ 1(/lI/lIlgjO arc readily used to translate

a III phrascs that ufl·"· I'" . I

. . I isc ,I ( liferent construction and that Imp y

a SUbtly dlffcrent tl I

I lOligH. In R(;I1I1'('rit/\'Ot;o (1910 126), for

examp e, julius C·.. J ' , ' ,~

, . . deSdr a( dresses his troops and says, ha:yrtu

IIU nddarar er siur. I rfi ' .

gi . bur : . o az /(I a VIda 11111 lteiminn mel) minni hamtn: u; ut 111 the corr di 0)

JUl' espon lI1g speech in Lucan (1928 VII.25 ,

IUS speaks t f' '

affairs' ( no 0 my Fortune' but of 'the Fortune of my

rerum fiortun· h

(R" a mearum). Similarly in the same speec omvenasaga 19 I 0 127 . . I haming' J.... ,) JulIUS says, 1111 er undir y()ru afit min

ta, petra manna k I ,r; . , ' U

rgum er e iej: rcevndan hraustleik aor t ma -

orrostum' b t . .

, U III Lucan (1928, VII.285-87) he says this:

c '. Sed mc fortuna mcorum

ommlsIt manib

Tot fecit b II' us, quarum me Gallia tcstcrn CIS.

But me Fortu-, has , I-

diers' d c as entrustcd to the hands of my own so

,an full ma' . of

their ny a War 111 Gaul made me the witneSS

prowess. (Dufl)

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

81

In Alexanders saga (4910-12), likewise, it is said that the men of Gaza wish to see whether their loyalty to Darius can overcome Alexander's Fortune (vilia freista ej trunaor sa er peir veita Dario konunge. jae sigrat hamingio Alexandri konungsi, but in the Alexandreis III.346-47 it is said more generally that the city of Gaza 'tests whether steadfast loyalty can overturn Fortune' (temptat I Fortunam sijorte fides euertere possity.

Examples could easily be rnultiplied.P What they all have in common is that the Latinjortllna is thought of as a single sovereign power which grants a run of successes to an individual before withdrawing that favour and bestowing it on another, whereas the Old Norse hamingja is attached to an individual whose enemy has a hamingja of his own - as will be discussed shortly.

2.3.6 Trusting to Luck in Latinate Thought. In line with the Latin way of thinking about this subject one finds the term jortunae filius, 'one born lucky, Fortune's darling' (OLD, fortuna 2b); and in the Alexandreis (II.179) we have Alexander's men saying that Fortuna had always been a mother to their king before suddenly turning herself into a cruel stepmother (Als II.180) following his dip in the Cignus, mentioned above (2.3.1). Using a related image, Walter himself also refers to Alexander as Fortuna's alumpnus, classical spelling alumnus, which LS defines as 'a nursling, pupil, foster-son': in Ais IX.37 I -76 Fortuna protects her alumpnus from the consequences of his brave but rash

25 In Alexanders saga (10623), for instance, Darius speaks of his lucklessness ihamingioleysc mitt) whilst in the A lexandreis , VII.19l-92, he says, Non habet ulterius quod nostris cladibus addat I Fortunae gladius, 'Fortune's sword can add nothing further to our disasters' (trans. Prit.). The same features can be observed in cases where 'luck' words other than fortuna and hamingja have been used. For example, Alexander tells his men that their prowess has won him more countries than other kings have gained through their luck (mea hamingio sina -Als 1149), but in Walter's text (Als VII.479- 80) he says that they have gained more countries 'than hazardous chance has given other kings' (aliis quam regibus urbes I Lubrica sors dederit - trans. Prit.). And when Darius is pursuing a scorched-earth policy it is said (AS 537) that Alexander still trusts his luck (treystir enn sinni g{'vo), whereas the Latin text (Als III.448-49) describes Alexander as 'making use of favourable fortune' (sorte secunda I Vsus).

82

DAVID ASHURST

leap into the fortress of the Sudracac, and in Als X.205-6 Walter

taxes h . h b . ,

. ~r w~t emg about to forsake Alexander at last. (This

I~age IS faIthfully reflected on both occasions in the word

{7~~~on use~ ~n .the corresponding passages of AS, 13933 and

. )'. Irnplicir In these metaphors is the idea that Fortuna, being In loco parentis, has certain responsibilities towards her

favourite no matte h h .

, r ow soon t ey may be terminated; and the

favoured man thou h bi

. ,g su ject to Fortuna as a boy is subject to

hIS carer may reas bl h .

..' ona y ave certain expectations of her - for a

lImIted period at I t Th

. ,eas . e moral dangers of beingjortunaefil-

iUS ~ave already been noted; and so has the main ethical defence agamst them whi h .

. .wrnc IS to understand that the 'parenting' analogy

will sooner or lat b k d

. er rea own when Fortuna turns away. In

the meantime how ' . d

thi ' ever, trustIng to luck' is not altogether a ba

Ing In every circumstance for the man who considers himself

to be lucky. Natu II ' '. .'

'. ra y a general, III this context of Latinate thlllk-

mg, will appeal t lhe cvi .

. 0 e eVidence of Fortuna's previous favours

When he IS encou-, " hi

AI agmg IS men before the onset of battle, as

exander does b f h

II.452-54): Core t e engagement at Issus (AS 3426-28; Als

Apessom dege '11 h . . .

. VI amll1gIan gefa pann sigr er hon hevir oss

opt helteo pe .

b . nna sigr bcnde hon pcgar firir fEvropa. jJa er per

rutuo Thebas alia til iardar,

Judged by th .

P· . 1 . e stnctest and most high-minded philosophical

rmcrp es thiS stat '. . .

to b ement IS Illogical and presumptuous but It IS

e approved as ff . '

by . an erective piece of rhetoric as may be seen

COmpanng Alexa d ' '.

of orat . n er s speech with the self-defeating piece

ory WIth whi h D . h

same battle . c . anus demoralises his troops before t e

tioned ab ,~nd In which he makes the ludicrous claim, men-

ove In 2 35th t h '1 . a

man wh . d ", a e WI I enJoy the same Fortune as

. 0 IS ead and buried.

ASide from co . d . . . d

that nSI eratlOns of effective rhetoric, it is Implie

a good general .

cal de . . may also rightfully trust to luck in his ractr-

CISlons as wh bl

fortune' tson, en Alexander, 'making use of favoura e

Sorte secunda I Vsus - Als III,448-49; AS 537), suc-

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

83

cessfully pushes on through land that Darius has ordered to be devastated for the sake of a scorched-earth policy. Here Walter signifies his approval of Alexander's action by adding that he was 'always aspiring to the highest peak of honour' (ad summum semper honoris I Aspirans apicem - Als 111.449-50, trans. Prit.; AS 538), and this is contrasted with Darius's morally dubious act of destroying his own subjects' livelihood, which is characterised as having been ordered 'so that by such a command he could turn the course of Fortune' (Vt tali articulo jortunae flectere cursum I Posset - Als III.441-42, trans. Prit.; omitted in AS).

In the Latinate mode of thought, then, it is permissible on the level of practical military ethics for a man to trust Fortuna for a while, if he does not try to control her. The possibility must arise, however, that he will reach a point where he has taken his trust too far or has even begun to think of himself as one who has rights over Fortuna. Alexander appears momentarily to have passed such a point when he addresses his men before the Battle of Arbela and tells them that they can certainly expect to gain the victory bviat hamingian er iafnan styrkir Alexandrum vill biona mer sem hon vill yvir vera oorum hofoengiom (AS 739-11; Als IY.553-55). As in the case of Alexander's earlier remarks about Fortuna in the speech before the Battle of Issus, this statement is no doubt intended as a rhetorical ploy that is meant to stiffen the courage of the troops, and it can perhaps be defended as such; but it is dangerous rhetoric, redolent of megalomaniac pride. To be completely fair to the portrayal of Alexander, however, it should be noted that his immediately preceding sentence shows that he has not, in reality, lost sight of the fact that he and his affairs are subject to God and Fortuna, since he declares that the earlier victories that he and his men have gained will be worthless nema guo oc hamingian leioe til goora lycta varn enn sioarsta sigr (AS 737-8; Als IV.551-52). To put this matter in further perspective it should also be remembered that it was only a few hours prior to making this speech that Alexander declared himself willing to lose both Fortune and the battle rather than transgress the ethics of war by making a night attack, as mentioned in 2.3.3.

7

n7··m'rrrrrm

84

DAVID ASIIl1RST

,2,3,~ Trusting to Luck in Non-Latinate Sagas. The situanon with regard to a man having trust in his luck, and indeed making ~Iaims upon it, is rather different in Old Norse sagas that are not dl~ectly derived from Latin sources, especially the kings' sagas, It IS most likely that the differences stem from the fact ~hich has already been mentioned, that in such sagas an indi~

vidual h ' , , ,

, ammgja IS often conceived as being associated with a

partIcular man, In the Heimskring/a version of Oldfs saga helga,

for example the sa' t' h ' , , f hi

, m s amtngja IS presented as one 0 IS

most notable and valued attributes, over which he has a certain de~ree of control. This can be seen most clearly in the episode in

which the Icelande H' I ' Skecci h

, , r]a I I eggjason decides to accompany t e

No~eglan BJQm stallari on a dangerous diplomatic mission to the kmg of the Swedes and asks 61Mr helgi to 'lay his luck' on

the e t '

n ~rpnse (Snorri Sturluson 1941-51. II 88): Hjatti gekk at

kOnungl ok kvaddt ' k I " ,

, I tann - () - J/Irf/{1Il va II/{ bess mjok, konungr,

at 1m leeeir hami , I' " " d f

, M'> II1R/ll una a 1}('s.WI [ero', Whatever kill 0

acuon on 61af '" I .

ac ' r s part t ie phrase leggja hamingju sina a e-t may

tually mvolve, it is clear that II jalti believes that it would be of benefit and tho t 0'1 if h . t

h a a r as the right and the power to gran

t e request. The ba' f I_T'I " ' ., b

, SIS a IJa tl s desire for this boon has een

establIshed in a I' hI' , d

B' ,s Ig t Y earlier can versation between him an

JQm stallan conceml' th ",' H' I ' here

, ng e same mrssron m which Ja u,

usmg the word ,/'. '

ki g%a as a synonym for hamingja declares that a

mg's luck d '

Th ' :an a a great deal (II 87): Mikit md konungs ga:fa,

ere IS no im Ii ' h

ki , P lcatlOn whatsoever that Hjalti's reliance on t e

mg s luck or hi b I" , ' '

, IS e ief that OIMr has the right to direct It, IS III

any way morall h

, Y SUspect. Far from it for in responding to t e

request aIM t kes n»: ' I

h r a es pams to assure Hjalti that he will try who e-

eartedly to b t hi '

th " es ow IS luck on all those who are to participate III

emIsSIon alth h ' t Crt' ' aug at the same time he implies that he IS no

e am to What e t hi , I "'ttu

i; x ent IS WIshes will be efficacious (JI88): Y/

pat vtst, at ek sk I II k til

I' ,a a an hug d leg Ria , ef pat vegr nokkut. 0

eglJ.Ja mea per mi, h ' , have

ana amlllgjU ok ollum y()r, Here, then, we

n example of ' , t th b a samted king who acknowledges that he IS no e a solute m t f hi 't as

as er a hIS luck but who nevertheless takes 1

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

85

his moral right - indeed his duty - to influence and direct it, or at least to make the attempt.

The complex of ideas embodied in this passage was a tapas in Old Norse literature, as may be deduced from the easy and light-hearted way in which the motifs are used in Porsteins pdttr bcejarmagns, a fantastical and far from edifying tale that was probably written in the first half of the fourteenth century (Hermann Palson and Edwards 1985, 20), Like Hjalti, Porsteinn is willing to undertake dangerous missions for a Christian king of Norway, here Olafr Tryggvason tFornaldarsiigur norourlanda 1943-44, III 398); and the king's luck has clearly been transferred to him since we are told at one point that he wishes to try it out (Kemr honum ( hug at treysta a konungs hamingju - III 399), in this case to help him with a spot of pilfering, Later in the story a certain Goomundr, ruler of Glresisvellir, says that he will let Porsteinn accompany him on a dangerous visit to Jotunheimar if King 6lMr will 'lay his luck' on them (III 404):

Ekki vilda ek pu hlytir vant af mer,' sagdi Goomundr, 'en ef Olafr konungr villleggja grefu a mea ass, pa mundi ek framt a treysta, at pu fterir,

A little later again, Porsteinn assures Goornundr that 6lMr's luck will strengthen them (Konungs gcefa mun styrkja oss - III 407) in a wrestling match with the giants,

In view of the ways in which these themes are deployed without special comment in such diverse writings as Heimskringla and Porsteins pdttr - the one a serious work, the other playful though sophisticated - it is safe to suppose that early audiences of Alexanders saga would have been familiar with these topics and would have been influenced by them in their understanding of those passages in which Alexander relies on his hamingja or gafa. It is clear, indeed, that the writer of Alexanders saga thought so readily in terms of 'trusting one's luck' that he used the phrase when he could easily have translated the Latin more accurately, as at the point where Alexander sees the rich lands

86

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

DAVID ASHURST

87

of Asia for the first time and trusts his luck so much that he not only claims Asia forthwith but also gives away his own patrimony in Greece (AS 151-2): oc sua treysti; hann nu sinni gejuat honom byckir sem petta liggi laust fyrir. Lonnroth (1976, 154) takes this to be an example of Alexander trusting his luck too much for his own good; but the Latin original of the passage suggests otherwise, for its wording is rather that Alexander is able to act in this way because his 'confidence in destiny (or the divine will) is so great' (tanta est fiducia fati - Als I.443), and such confidence is entirely well founded because Alexander has by this time received a divine promise that his attempted conquest will be successful, discussed below in 4.4.2.26 Contrary to Lonnroth's view, then, the phrase about trusting one's luck is being used in a very positive way at this point in the saga as a rough equivalent to trusting the divine will; and although this is a rather extreme example, the positive connotations of the phrase as it is used here are very much in line with the positive view of the i.dea taken in connection with Iljalti Skeggjason and Olafr helgi, These positive connotations should also be borne in mind, at least, when interpreting passages in Alexanders saga, such as the speech before the Battle of Arbela, in which Alexander may possibly be trusting Fortune or claiming rights over her to a presun:Pt~ous extent, for what is morally dubious in the context of Latin literature may seem very much less dubious in the context of Old Norse.

2.3.8 Knowing the Limits of Luck. Olafr helgi's reply to .Hjalti in the Heimskringla passage indicates that a man's reliance on his hamingja was necessarily limited, in the Old Norse context as in the Latin - but for different reasons. Before going o~ to sa~ that he will bestow his luck upon Hjalti and his compa.mons, Ohifr makes this remark about Hjalti's own luck (Sno:f1 S~urluson 1979, II 88): Balta mun bat til um pessajeri), at 1m jartr meo beim, pvf at 1)11 hcfir opt reyndr veri! at ham'

26 For [atum as 'destiny' and 'divine will' see the glosses given LS: 'I. ap:o'

phetic declaration, oracle, prediction. II. A. that which is ordained, des/my, fate. B. I. the will or determination of the gods.'

ingju. Hjalti, it appears, has good reason to trust his own luck but places more faith in the king's, implying that he believes it to be more reliable or more powerful, or both. That the issue in fact concerns the relative power of 6lafr's hamingja is shown by another passage in the same saga, where Hrcerekr, one of five petty kings who are faced with subjugation, urges his compeers not to pit themselves against Olafr in a contest of luck (II 102):

Ok er pat mitt roO heldr at hcetta eigi til bess at etja hamingju vio Old! Haraldsson. As Hallberg (1973, 159) says of this passage, the point of it is that Hrcerekr does not trust their hamingja to match 6lafr's.27 According to this Old Norse literary way of thinking, then, the issue in connection with 'trusting to luck' is that a man must not depend on his own particular luck beyond its capability, whereas in the Latinate way of thinking Fortuna is a unitary power governing all men, and must not ultimately be trusted because she is essentially capricious, taking up favourites and then dropping them again at her will. It is a man's responsibility, in the Old Norse literary context, to discern the point at which his hamingja will be outmatched, either by the more powerful hamingja of a rival or by the sheer weight of circumstance; putting this another way, a man may legitimately trust his luck so long as he does not stretch his trust too far. Hence Olafr helgi in exile doubts whether he should go back to reclaim Norway, the issue being that the forces massed against him seem too great for him to trust the luck that he now has (Snorri Sturluson 1979, II 339-340):

Nii efaoi hann urn fyrir pa sok, hvart pat myndi vera vitrligt nlo at treysta sva mjok hamingjuna at fara meo Iftinn styrk f hendr fjandmonnum sfnum, er allr landsrnugr hafoi til slegizk at veita Olafi konungi motgongu.

27 Much the same kind of thinking also lies behind a passage in Egils saga (1933, 9) where K veld-Vlfr refuses to support his local king against Haraldr Halfdanarson because he thinks that Haraldr has plenty of luck while the local man has very little: ek hygg, at hann haft par byro! gnoga hamingju, er konungr vdrr haft eigi kreppingfullan.

88

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

89

This passage, however. shows the influence of the Latinate co~c~Pt of a unitary Fortune. as indicated by the presence of the definite article and the absence of a possessive pronoun with the

word han" d ir i

, llng;a. an I! IS Immediately preceded by the statement

that Olafr conside hi d I .

rs IS goo uck to have changed after the first

~en ye~~s of his rule - essentially the Latin concept of Fortuna's InstabilIty (II 339):

Darius across the territories which the Persians have scorched. The sense of the equivalent source text (Als III.448-49, quoted above in 2.3.6) is rather that Alexander is 'making use of favourable fortune' (sorte secunda I Vsus), implying that he believes Fortuna to be well-disposed towards him for the moment and that he is willing to capitalise on the presumed fact; but the implications of the Old Norse version are significantly, although SUbtly, different. As the saga has it, Alexander must have formed an opinion about the power of his luck and the extent to which he can rely upon it before beginning the pursuit, and the success of his action proves again for later occasions that his judgement was correct.

2.3.9 Misjudging One's Luck. Clearly, given these considerations, there is a strong possibility that a man in the Old Norse literary context may overestimate the power of his luck, and hence one would expect Latin-derived sagas to exhibit a more ready concern for misjudgements of this kind than do their sources. There is evidence that this is the case. In De bello civili, for example, there is a passage in which Julius Caesar returns to his army after almost drowning in a small boat on stormy seas, and his anxious men demand the following (Lucan 1928, V.695): quid numina lassas, 'Why do you weary the gods?' In the equivalent passage of Romveriasaga (1910, 120), however, the men's concern is presented squarely as a matter of taxing Julius's hamingja beyond reasonable measure: yfrio miok rceynir Pll bina hamingiu i orrostum, pot Pil hlaupir ceigi d haf tit i ufterum veorum, In the Alexandreis, also, there is a passage in which the common soldiers, here the Macedonians, hurl reproaches at their leader, in this case because an eclipse of the moon has thrown them into dismay (Als III.483-93). Although this incident occurs before Alexander has even defeated Darius, the accusations which the men utter in their panic include several that are normally associated with Alexander at the end of his career, such as the claim that he is dragging his army to the ends of the earth and is going beyond the limits prescribed for man; but they culminate in the following (III.492-93):

~n er hann hafOi par a huginn, pa minntisk hann pess, at lila fyrstu tfu vetr konungdoms hans varu honum allir hlutir

hagfelldir ok fars=III'gl' ';"\, '-'I '

u.- r, en sioan varu honum gil rao SIn

punghrcero ok torson, en gagnstaOligar allar harningjuraunirnar.

S' '1

rrm arly the passage from Flatevjar/Jc5k (1944-45 I 99),

quoted above in 2 3 I h ' h '. ' .' d

. . . , sows ow wrucrs and audiences coul

combme the two ways f thi ki

c • 0 111 II1g about Fortune, or pass from

one to the other with t .

b I ou notll1g any incompatibility, since the

e eaguered men of th ,Hf J' I' /-

hev w: e wcnc IS 1 city telllJlMr Tryggvason that t ey will capitulate hell ' , ') ., . , , . hdl '. '. c r en stru 1I met) javtzku moll yvvam

a e uri humin (1']U e r y )) .

• <,,>, ( r stye r ok styrkir alla vega; they then go

on to mvoke Fortun d h '.

a an er wheel as a further reason for their

surrender. The seCond f' .

th L . part a their speech obviously embodies

e atm concept of I k .

I uc as a unitary power but the first part

a most as clearly indo h ' "

h . . Icates t at the men are thinking of OIMr s

amtng;a as a . di .

Fac d . h n m rvidua] entity attached to him in particular,

e wit a moral d . .

to . I an practICal dilemma - whether to fight or

capltu ate - the men d . d

ditio . h eCI e What to do by assessing their con-

n WI! regard to lu k: h .

th . . c . on t e one hand they do not consider

elr own hamtn .

other th ~Ja strong enough to combat Olafr 's, and on the

ey perceIve that F rt' .

down A d t hi 0 una s wheel IS about to throw them

. not IS I! m b

implies that th ay . e added that the context of the saga

in this way e lea« act WIsely and well in making their choice

,not east becaus th ir d " , 'f'

glory. . e err ecisron redounds to ala r s

It is thinking of th·. .

AS 537 that AI IS type that lIes behind the statement, in

, exander t .

reysu» enn sinni g{?VO when he pursues

90

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

91

Vnius ad laudem tot inire pericula, tantas Fortunae uariarc uices.

and hamingja gave Alexander control of the world, it remains to emphasise that in much Old Norse literature a man was positively admired for having good luck, since his hamingja was his own in a way which is not prefigured in Latin usage. This can be seen especially clearly in a passage in Egils saga (1933, 30) where the brothers Harekr and Hrcerekr are fomenting trouble for Porolfr Kveld-Ulfsson by telling Haraldr harfagri that Porolfr had been planning to kill him at a feast, and Harekr says:

For the praise of one so many (have) to enter dangers, to provoke such great reversals - or possibly 'reprisals' _ of Fortuna.

The Latin is a little tricky at this point. 28 The author of Alexanders saga, however, sidesteps the difficulties by turning the men's complaint into one against putting excessive trust in luck, here conceived in the Latin fashion as 'fickle Fortuna':

Alexander, they say (AS 5416-17), treystir mislyndre hamingiv alit or hofi. The importance of this accusation is not that it is true, for in fact it stems from superstitious fear and is soon forgotten when morale and loyalty are restored, but that it demonstrates two things: first, that the Old Norse translator had recourse to this argument even though it is not present in the Latin text, thus suggesting that it was a natural way of thinking for him and his expected aUdience; and secondly that this way of thinking includes the moral condemnation of trusting luck when it goes 'altogether beyond measure', but not when it stays within a judicious assessment of the luck that a man has. The injustice of the complaint, furthermore, is particularly obvious for that fact that t~is episode in the saga follows only one page after the passag~, dIscussed above (2.3.8), in which Alexander trusts or tests his luck by leading his army across a devastated region, and thus shows that he both assesses his good fortune judiciously and stays within the measure of it.

.2.3.10 Luck as an Admired Asset. Returning now to the pnmary question of how the early audiences of Alexanders saga were likely to have interpreted the statement that ]raga

For pat, sem Ifkligt var, at pu vart vitrastr ok hamingjumcstr, pvf at pri grunadir pegar, at eigi myndi allt af heilu vera, er pu satt fjolmenni pat it mikla, er par var saman dregit.

The passage is ironic, of course, since Haraldr is neither wise nor particularly lucky in his consequent persecution of Porolfr; but the collocation of the words vitrastr and hamingjumestr in this piece of flattery shows that being possessed of good fortu~e was seen as a quality just as desirable as high intelligence: It IS also notable that in this passage Haraldr's supposed luckiness, since it is one of the means by which he is said to have realised that a trap was being laid for him, is presented as something that complements and supports the attribute of intelligence, or perhaps we may say the virtue of wisdom; and hence it can be seen that hamingja, as characterised here, is very far removed from the morally corrupting influence that Curti us and the a.uthor of Elucidarius considered Fortuna to be. A variation on thIs theme of luck as an admired complement t~ good sense can. also .be found in the Heimskringla version of Oldfs saga helga, in which the king says the following to Sigvatr skald poroarson, who has caused OIMr's son to be christened while the king slept, because the boy was near death and because to waken a king was not permitted (Snorri Sturluson 1979, II 210-11):

Grefumaor ertu mikill, Sigvatr. Er pat eigi undarligt, at gref~ fylgi vizku. Hitt er kynligt, scm stundum kann vero~, at su grefa fylgir ovizkum monnum, at ovitrlig nio srniask til hamingju.

28 Pri .

rtf. grves the following translation: 'It was for one man's glorification that

t~ey Were encountering so many dangers and causing such diverse fluctuations of fortune.' Townsend (Walter 1996) offers a different interpretation:

For one man's praise

they all endured so many dangers, gambling on Fortune's vast reversals.

92

DAVID ASHURST

Much as in the Egils saga passage quoted in the previous paragraph, luck is here presented in the first place as an attribute which one would hope to possess along with wisdom, since the two qualities complement each other; but the second part of OIMr's speech sets a still higher premium on luck, for it affirms that, although it is surprising that foolish men can possess luck, when they do so the luck may compensate for their lack of wisdom. Even a fool, therefore, may be admirable if he is a gajumaor or has the quality of being hamingjumestr.

Given that such a high value was set on the possession of luck in the Old Norse literary context, it was inevitable that a military leader who was deemed to possess this attribute would be praised for the SUccesses which he achieved on the basis of his good fortune as well as for those which he gained through good management; or putting this another way, the luck of a successful leader would enhance his prestige rather than diminish it. And this is precisely what we find in the case of Olafr Tryggvason's capture of the Wendish city in the Flateyjar!J()k account mentioned above (2.3. I and 2.3.8), and in the lJeimskringla account of how Ola~r helgi subdued the petty kings who ignored King Hroerekr's adVICe not to pit their luck against OIMr's (2.3.8). Even closer to the theme of empire bUilding, it is also what we find in the summing up of Haraldr harfagri's career in Fagrskinna (1985, 58-59), which praises Haraldr for his wisdom his foresight, his i~perial designs on Norway, and for the ha~ingja that helped him to realise those designs:

Rann _var spekimaor mikilI ok langsynn ok agjarn, her m~il styrkch hann hamingja ok fyrinetlan, at hann skyldi vera yfIrm,ao: Noromanna rfkis, er af hans rett hefir tignazk pat land her til ok sva mun vera jafnan.

In the light of a passage such as this, it is likely that audiences of Alexanders saga took an entirely positive view of the statement that hamingja made Alexander monarch of the world, whatever the subtext of the Latin Source may be' furthermore there is evidenc th h ' k ch

e at t e Old Norse translator himself too su

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

93

a view, for in paraphrasing one of Walter's interjections at the point where Alexander has gained control of Babylon and of the Persian Empire he says (AS 8422-26):

Se. segir hann enn til borgarennar. hversu stillelega stiom hann veitir sigrooom peirn er geva sec mans valId. oc lit amicla millde pess mannz er hamingian veitir flesta farselld. oc sva lin log gefr sinum undirmonnum.

The reference to Fortuna here is the translator's own addition to the source text (Als VI.11-13) which simply remarks on Alexander's prosperity:

Aspice quam blandis uictos moderetur habenis. Aspice quam clemens inter tot prospera uictor. Aspice quam mitis dictet ius gentibus.

Behold, with what gentle reins he controls the conquered; behold how merciful a conqueror he is amid all his successes; behold: how mildly he administers justice to the nations. (Prit.)

The comments in their Old Norse guise embody sentiments that any courtier could have written for a monarch who had enlarged his territories; but it is impossible to miss how parti.cularl.y appropriate they would be as hints for King Hakon gamli or h.IS son Magnus lagaboetir in their dealings with the Icelan~e~s, m view of the reference to those who give themselves willingly into the royal power, and to the handing down of gentle. laws to the king's new SUbjects. In this immediate context the Imperial gift that is bestowed by Fortuna upon Alexander and the Norwegian kings alike can only be seen as an unequivocal good for which the recipients are to be congratulated - eve~ th~ugh for Alexander in the wider context of his career, the gift bnngs with it the potentially corrupting influence of Babylonian luxury, discussed below in chapter 5. The Old Norse translator has .had an additional purpose in importing a reference to Fortuna I~tO this passage, however, besides the possible one of congratulating

94

DAVID ASHURST

the Norwegian king or kings; for as it now stands the passage clearly prefigures the climax of the saga (see 1.2.1-2), where Fortuna brings all peoples to place themselves wilIingly under Alexander's rule, and where Alexander promises to govern with such mildness that it wiII seem like freedom to serve him. The correspondences are obvious; and so too is the fact that for Old Norse audiences the moral connotations of the latter passage would be as positive as those of the former.

2.3.11 Fortuna Not Supreme. In concluding this analysis of the ethical issues that surround the statement that Alexander received his empire from the hands of Fortuna, I must address one more topic: it is the fact that neither the author of Alexanders saga nor Alexander himself as portrayed in its pages, nor for that matter Walter of ChatilIon in the Alexandreis believed that ~ortuna was the ultimate power which had disposal of men's lives Behind Fortuna was fate or, mythologicalIy speaking, the Fates' and behind th II .. f

'. em a was God, the ultimate disposer 0

human affaIrs and of cosmic order.

To ilIustrate this in the first instance from texts that have

already been mentt d i hi '.' f

t . one In t IS chapter: during the dISCUSsIOn 0

actlcs before the Battle of Arbela, Alexander says that it would

be better for Fortu t b

. . ne 0 urst because of adverse fate (at ham-

tngtan breste fire sakir annstreymra orlaga _ AS 6728-29; 2.3.3)

than for him to win h ful v: '. h

. . I a same ul victory In a night attack, and t us

he mdlcates that fat . h' 29' hi

. e, In t e end, IS the superior power; III IS

ensumg speech before the battle itself, furthermore, Alexander acknowledges that it is 'God and Fortuna' (guo oc hamingian - AS 737; Als IV522' 23 '11

d . " .. 6), rather than Fortuna alone who WI

eClde Whethe th M' '. 1 . r e acedollIans are to be given this cruela VIctory.

F 2.3.12 Fortuna SUbject to Fate. The relationship between

ortuna and fate is toni . .

. a OplC which in fact surfaces several tImes

In the saga Wh Al . h

C· . en exander takes his disastrous swim III t e

ignus, for exampl (2 3 1 h'

e ..), the Old Norse translator follows IS

29 The reference to fat h' . . 64

which 8 eak e ere 18 an addItIOn to the Latin text, Als 1\1.363- ,

P s only of suffering bad luck.

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

95

source closely in remarking that the king's Fortune paused while a sudden accident contended with fate (AS 242-5; Als II.157-59):

Her matte nu sia at seiotr atburor fekz via orlogen. oc leitade peim urn at tuma. oc ipessom atburo stadnaoe nockot hamingia konungsens.

For a time Alexander's life is in danger; but fate wins the contest, for Alexander starts to recover once Fortuna has spent a while asserting her right to be fickle (AS 2428_259; Als 11.190-203). In this passage it is not entirely clear whether Fortuna, left to her Own devices, would side with fate or with the chance event; but in a subsequent passage she must certainly comply with fate when the latter eventually decrees Alexander's death, as Walter and his translator make plain in an interjection addressed to Fortuna herself (AS 14923-26; Als X.207 -11):

ef pu matt eigi gera via pvi er orlogen biooa at Alexander seyle bratt lataz. ger hann po varan via sviken. oc kom pvi via at helldr verdi honom vapn en eitr at scada,

The Latin text here (X.209-10) includes an assertion that Fortuna has at least the power to change the form of the death even if she cannot ward off the death itself; but this is omitted in the saga, and in any case Fortuna does not prevent the poisoning, whether because she will not or she cannot. The dropping of this assertion may have no special significance but it is well in line with other aspects of the Old Norse translator's treatment of the subject, for by this point in the text he has committed his portrayal of Alexander to a radical acceptance of determinism with regard to death: when Alexander has been shot and his physician is afraid to risk drawing the barbed arrow from the wound, the king assures the man that he will not be blamed, whatever happens, bviat eigi fer bu vio orlogum minom gort (AS 1425-6). This assurance and the reasoning on which it is based are not found in the source text (Als IX.468-69), in which Alexander simply demands to know whether the physician still fears punishment

96

DAVID ASHURST

even though, if the worse comes to the worst, he will merely be helpin~ the king by hastening his death. Alexander's speech as it stands In the Old Norse version can perhaps be interpreted as an example of what Walter, in another context, called Alexander's 'confidence in fate' tfiducia fati - Als 1.443) _ a confidence for which there is a religious basis, as discussed in 2.3.13 and 4.4 b~low. The thought in this case would then be that the physicI~n too should have confidence because the king knows that he

WIll not die Ale d' .

. . xan er s precedmg sentence, however, stands

agal~s~ ~uch an interpretation because he seems to be taking the possibilIty of imminent death quite seriously (AS 1422-4 based loosely on parts of Als IXo465-69): ef bu ser at eigi ma gr~oa petta sar. ba scalltv minka meinlfti mitt. oc gera mer sciotan

dauoa meo haro . I . T

. . n fcmngo. he encouragement given to the

physIcian therefo . lik I .

. ' re, IS ley to be a genuine pardon that IS

offered m advance f h .. d

. or w atever may happen, and which IS base

on the kmg's cour ~ I' . .

ageous lata Ism; m short, Alexander IS here

demonstrating the t S·

rue tOIC amor fati the willing acceptance

of that which is allott d Thi bei . ,

'. e. IS eing the case, or even if the less

likely mterpretatio . d

. n IS correct, Alexander is acting morally an

affirmmg the primacy of fate.

G d2.3.13 Fortuna Subject to God. With regard to the issue of o as the ultimat behi f

Fe power ehind the apparently random acts a

ortuna, Walter of Ch ~t'll' .

Chri . a I on and his Old Norse translator, bemg

nstIans natu 11 k .

h Id i ra y too the View that the princes of the earth

s ou in the end I k

. . 00 to God, 'the highest conqueror' as the

ongmator of thei . ,

. err nse and fall, even though they may in the first

mstance thank bl .

refl ti or arne Fortuna; hence we find the followinf

ec Ions, made in th hori . . h

e aut onal VOIce in connection with t e

career of Cy h '

44): rus, t e great Persian king (AS 3712-15; Als 11.542-

Eigi scylldo heir '.

. p oc emr slgrs010 vera upacnernir via enn h~sta

sigr vegara Sa er f t'

sa . ge a rna styrk oc riki sigr oc auoefe. sa enn

me ma pat alit ibron taka begar er hann viiI.

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

97

The authors also ensure that Alexander is made aware of this underlying reality, ifhe did not already perceive it, in the episode of the lunar eclipse. Speaking as a polytheist who makes the premise that the eclipse portends the divine will, to which he is subject, Alexander has asked his astrologers to explain why the eclipse had taken place and hvat guoen monde eptir petta lata koma (AS 5421-22; Als IIIo499-500). A certain Aristandus, accepting the king's premise, eventually explains that the eclipse signifies defeat for the Persians; but first he is at pains to assert that there is one Creator who both foresees events and ordains them, whether in the heavens or on earth (AS 5427_554; Als III.504-15):

Gvoleg scipan styrir himintunglom. en eptir pvi ganga pau sem alIra luta scapere hevir firir sci pat. AlIt verdr eptir pvi fara sem harm hefir fyrir set Ivpphafe, hvart sem serenn gengr aland framan venio. [ ... ] eda fae menn sottir af vanstilli lopzens. [ ... ] pa veror petta alIt eptir vilia pess ens heesta hofoengia er 0110 rCj_!or. An hans raoe mega himintunglen ecki.

Since Aristandus goes on to cite the evidence of ancient books to the effect that a lunar eclipse always portends bad luck (hamingjuleysi) for the Persians (AS 5513-15), the inference is clear: the Creator, who rules the heavenly bodies, also rules Fortuna - who appears in her fully personified form in the corresponding Latin text (Als II1.526-29).

Alexander remains a polytheist to the end, as is made clear by the death speech in which he imagines the possibility of reigning with Jupiter and Mars (AS 15315-31; Als Xo403-17; 804.6); hence he is presumably referring to Jupiter when he acknowledges, not very long after the eclipse, that it is guo oc hamingian (AS 737; 2.3.6 and 2.3.11) from whom he must accept victory - the Word guo here being singular in correspondence with the word deus in the source text (Als IV.552). Nevertheless he has surely grasped Aristandus's point, that a single divine purpose underlies the apparent caprice of Fortuna. As to the concept of a unique omnipotent Creator, he is certainly introduced to this idea in its specifically Judeo-Christian form when the Hebrew architect

8ayerischo Staatsbibliothek Munchen

98

DAVID ASHURST

Apelles, on Alexander's instigation, builds a tomb for the wife of Darius and decorates it with a depiction of how God created the world in six days (AS 6220-24; Als IV. I 80-86); and later he acquiesces, at least, when Apelles inscribes on the tomb of Darius a reference to the prophecy of Daniel which allots Alexander a place in the scheme of history predestined by the same Creator. Long before this point, however, Alexander himself has received a visitation from the Judea-Christian God or his representative, and has been given the promise of world empire (AS 173-2°; Als I.511~~5). Alexander, as a pagan, does not properly recognise the. vlsIt~nt; nor does he grasp the full implications of the visit, whrch will be discussed extensively in 4.4-5. But he tells his men about the incident so that they will understand the reason why he can have such confidence in his prosperity (hvaoan ec mega Sva mioc treystaz vase [arscelld _ AS 1629; Als I.500) and so that they will be steadfast even though Fortuna is very unstable (}Jolt haminngia se mioc os!(uhtg _ AS 1624-25; Als 1.496-97). th can be seen, therefore, that Alexander is placing his trust in

e un~nown God Whom Walter and his Old Norse translator beheved to be the true God; and he is declaring that the unknown God is more trustworthy than Fortuna implying also

that F rt . ,

o ~na IS the less potent of the two. In other words, he is

engaged 10 an act of faith, albeit a faith that lacks understanding and a system of belief - a pagan's faith in the Christian God.

This faith is the final concept that we need so as to under-

stand the range of Al der '

exan er s moral attitudes towards Fortuna

throughout his . . I

'. campaIgns until the moment when her whee

carnes him to w Id .

. or empire and the peak of success: he trusts

hIS luck boldly th h i " .

. . ' aug JUdlClOusly and within measure, but IS

wlllmg to see it d I . . I estroyed by adverse fate for the sake of mora

mtegnty' at th . .

b ' e same time he has confidence that fate will not

e adverse yet' h f h

'11' ' 10 t e ace of death and the loss of his hopes e

WI ingly accepts wh . . h

. '. atever IS fated; and underlying all this t ere IS faith - Imperf t . . h it '. ec , 1Oconslstent and uncomprehending thoug I IS - 10 the God h

w 0 encompasses both fate and Fortuna.

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

99

2.4 Conclusions

The essential point in connection with fame and Fortuna is that when the saga declares Alexander to have been made ruler of the world by fra:go and hamingja the statement is one that squares with a positive moral judgement on Alexander and his career, for the negative connotations that may form at least a subtext to the equivalent statement in the Latin source are very much less to the fore in the Old Norse version.

The idea that the fame of a leader could cause the capitulation of his enemies, which is crucial to the climactic passage of the saga, must be taken seriously since it has Scriptural backing and since both Walter and his translator work hard to establish it (2.2.5). It is not as a means to easy victory, however, that a Christian king such as Magnus berfcettr could value fame so highly as to declare that it was more important than good generalship (2.2.3), but as something capable of bestowing prestige and status, which were legitimate desiderata for Christians in the Old Norse world as elsewhere (2.2.1). Certainly the desire for fame, as opposed to fame itself, was ethically ambivalent because it could lead to folly and even to spiritual error of the type indicated by a strictly Christian interpretation of the passage of the saga in which Alexander says that he would prefer fame to the kingdom of heaven (2.2.4); but even this apparently definite and shockingly unspiritual statement can bear a non-Christian interpretation, concerning the various possibilities for a blessed afterlife as understood by pagans, that is far less damaging to Alexander's moral standing (2.2.4). In the rest of the narrative, furthermore, Alexander regularly exemplifies the close connection between the love of fame, on the one side, and the virtues of generosity and courage on the other, for fame matters to Alexander more than wealth and more even than life itself (2.2.2) - a set of priorities that is commensurate with the Christian contemptus mundi, even though it has a different origin.

Good fortune in the context of Old Norse literature, is frequently seen as a'possession (2.3.5) that enhances the prestige of

100

DAVID ASIIURST

a leader rather than diminishes the value of his accomplishments (2.3.9). It is in the light of this fact that the statement about Alexander receiving his empire from /iwl/illgja must be understood, especially since several other passages in Alexanders saga itself present luck as an admired asset (2.3.9). Nevertheless the Boethian figure of Fortuna, with her corrupting influence on men, was also familiar to Old Norse audiences (2.3.1 and 2.3.2); but so too were the moral defences against her blandishments, especially the virtues that hold a man to his steady purpose and above all the Stoic ability to care little about the eventual withdrawal of Fortuna's favour. These defences against Fortuna are attitudes and qualities, in fact, which the narrative shows Alexander to have exhibited throughout his life (2.3.3) despite the occasional statement to the contrary. Even in Latinate thought, furthermore, a certain reliance of Fortuna was acceptable in the short term (2.3.6), and in the Old Norse context it was clearly considered right for men not only to rely on their luck, as ~Iexa~d~r does from time to time (2.3.4), but even to influen~e It, ~s Olafr helgi attempts to do (2.3.7). The ethical and practIcal ISsue for a king SUch as 61Mr, in fact, is not whether to rely on luck at all, but to discern precisely how far it may be trusted, and to stop trusting it when it can be relied on no further (2.3.8). Alexander him If' hi d'ng of

t . se , III IS saga, dIsplays a full understan I .

~ese moral ISsues, and complies with their demands; in add~-

hon he reveals d· . rfect It

an un erstandmg, however dim or Impel!'

may be as seen from the Christian point of view, that although he appears most obviously to be the favourite or fosterson of Fortuna beh' d hi . . the

' 111 t IS appearance the reality is that he IS m

han~s of the gods or of God (2.3.10-12). In truth Alexander receIves his . 'wply

b empIre, and knows that he receives it, not sr

ecaus, of fame d F .. '11 an ortuna but through the divine WI .

CHAPTER 3

Aristotle s Counsel

3.1 The Nature of the Counsel

3.1.1 Introduction: Context of the Advice. This study now turns to the episode near the beginning of the saga, in which Aristotle gives advice to Alexander about how he should conduct himself as a king and warrior. The nature of the advice in its context will first be discussed; then the details of the advice and the extent to which Alexander subsequently fulfils them will be examined; and finally the immediate and medium-term effects of the advice on Alexander will be analysed.

It has already been remarked (2.2.1) that in the opening passage of Alexanders saga the Old Norse translator endorses Alexander'S career by stating that his actions proved him to be a king's son rather than the illegitimate offspring of a magician. By saying this, the writer has prepared his audience for the anxieties expressed by Alexander himself when he first appears in the saga as a boy of twelve and speaks a soliloquy in which declares himself eager to be about a man's work (AS 33-6; Als 1.46-47):

Eda man pat iafnan scolo xtlao vera. at ec sia son ens versta manz Neptanabi. Syna villda ec pat po inockoro at ec vera konungs son at saunno. oc po engi attlere.

The boy laments the fact that a human male takes so long to reach his full fighting strength, and expresses his earnest wish for the power at hrinda pvi dnauoar oke aj er a er lagt riki /auoor mfns (AS 218-19). At this point the reference to Alexander's father is the translator's own addition, an appropriate detail that

102

DAVlD ASHURST

deepens the characterisation by not only confirming the filial piety of the hero-to-be but also implying his desire to save, and hence to outdo, the patriarchal figure; but the image of the yoke of oppression, here mentioned for the first time in the saga, is present in the corresponding passage of the source (Als 1.35). The oppressors are, of course, the Persians and in particular their king, Darius, as the young Alexander has just discovered (Als I.30-32):

Darium dare iura Pelasgis Gentibus imperiique iugo patris arua prementem Audit.

He heard that Darius was giving Jaws to the Greek peoples and oppressing his father's lands with the yoke of empire.3D

The Old Norse translator handles this subject a little more fully and dramatically than his auctor docs, saying that when Alexander was twelve years old Darius's emissaries came to collect from Philippus the tribute that one Persian king after another had customarily taken from the king of the Greeks (AS 25-11) Wh

. en he sees the foreigners in his father's hall, the boy

asks where they are from and why they have come; and so the facts a:e ?ut before him (AS 212-15). The translator thus makes the mam ISsue of imperial oppression, in this first reconnoitring of the subject, a matter of taxation rather than of law-giving,

and e h . .

mp asrses the fact by adding the statement, not found III

the source, that the taxes were claimed so immoderately that they. were levied equally on the sea and the land (AS 211-12): bessi scattr var sva frekliga heimtr. at iafnnval scyllde giallda at samom sem af L di I' " . mpts

. an ina. t IS this information that pro

Alex~nder's soliloquy, at the end of which the boy grows frantiC (ceddlZ hann - AS 37 . ki bach,pIC mg up the phrase ettrenus totus

atur 'h JJI I'k

Wal' e rages completely out of control', from Als 1.56). Un J. e

ter, the Old Norse translator takes the trouble to affirm again

30 My translation- P 'f . .

, nt. IS too Inaccurate to be quoted.

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

103

that the object of Alexander's fury is Darius and that the reason for it is the claiming of tribute from Alexander's father (AS 38-9).

At this juncture Aristotle, Alexander's tutor, enters and sees that his pupil is in the grip of strong emotion. Having understood the reason for it, he embarks upon a long speech giving his young charge advice about good governance, generalship and personal morality. There was a strong appetite for platitudinous counsel throughout the medieval world - to which Norway and Iceland were no exceptions, as indicated by the existence of KOl1l1l1gs skuggsja and by the collections of sayings embedded in Hdvamdl; Sigrdrifumal and Yolsunga saga (1965,39-40). The translator accordingly gives the speech careful treatment, condensing or occasionally expanding it, and adapting it to suit a set of stylistic criteria distinct from that of the poet, but preserving its structure and its moral substance.

It is possible to make rather too much of Aristotle and this speech, as Lonnroth (1976, 159) does when he characterises the philosopher as the 'Wise Counselor', equating his role with that of Njall in Brennu-Njdls saga (see 4.1 below) and saying that the good advice of both men is forgotten with terrible consequences for the young heroes to whom it is given. Harich (1985-86) also overstates the case, in my opinion, by arguing that Aristotle's speech is programmatic for the entire narrative of the Alexandreis, although Meter (1991,19) strongly approves of this view. Nevertheless it is true that what Aristotle gives his young charge at this point in the story is intended as a miniature 'mirror for princes' and that several, but not all, of his moral dicta touch on matters that become issues for the portrayal of Alexander later in the narrative.

3.1.2 The Purpose of the Advice. After hearing Alexander's complaint against Persian oppression and witnessing his tears, Aristotle says the following in the Latin text (Als 1.82-84):

Indue mente uirum, Macedo puer, arma eapesee. Materiam uirtutis habes, rem pro fer in aetum; Quoque modo id possis, aurem hue aduerte, doeebo.

104

DAVID ASHURST

Assume the mantle of a man in your mind, Macedonian boy, and take up arms. You have the potential for valour; realise it in action. And listen carefully - I will tell you how you can achieve this. (Prit.)

Aristotle's purpose in embarking on his long speech, therefore, is specifically to prepare Alexander for his aggressive role in leading the Macedonians against their enemies, primarily but not exclusively the Persians. The same point is made with equal c . h . (AS 413.18). rorce in t e saga, where Aristotle says the following .

Meo pviat per se start i hug. ba pryddu pic fyrst mea rail· spekinne. en tak sidan til vapna pinna eptir fyst pinne. Ec s: [ ... J at pu hefir efni til at verda mikill madr oc mattogr. span pat nu eigi vio pic. oc hly<) mer nu vandliga. oc man ec kenna per hverso pu scallt at fara.

All Aristotle's subsequent pieces of moral advice _ about giving

. . 'ding

upnght Judgement, about discouraging greed. about aVO! .

over-indulgence, and so forth - arc of course important for their own sakes; but it must not be forgotten that they are all given for a single purpose, namely to teach young Alexander how to turn himself into a victor.

3.2 The Speech

3.2.1 The Promotion of the Low. In the opening passage of his speech, Aristotle urges Alexander not to listen to the slanders of hypocritical Courtiers (AS 420-22; Ais 1.85-86). Implyi~g .that :i~~: people would necessarily be of low status (the logic IS a clearer in the Latin, which refers to the hypocrites as procerllll1 servi 'th I I' t sorne

1, e s aves of princes'), he goes on to exp am a

l~ngth that men Who are naturally base must not be promoted to high positions (AS 422-25; Als 1.86-91):

. ·ti ~0-

en?1 seal pa menn hatt setia er natturan viII at lagt SI ~ IjtiJI

pelra metnaor prutnar sva sciott af metoroonom. se

lcecr afmiklo regni. pat er oc oronom nest er veslo batnar.

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

105

The last sentence here, which certainly looks like an adage but appears not to be attested elsewhere, is an addition to the Latin text and as such confirms the Old Norse translator's approval of the words that Walter has put into Aristotle's mouth." To these essentially aristocratic sentiments, however, both authors then add an elaborate let-out clause to the effect that it is of course reasonable to promote gifted and upright men even if they do not possess much wealth or high lineage (AS 426_52; Als I.92-95). The Old Norse translator is of the opinion that morals should matter more than gold and that money should not determine rank (AS 52-5, corresponding loosely to Als 1.96-102):

Gott sioferdi scalltu virda gulli betra. oc pvi scalltu eigi penninginn lata rada nafnbotonom. at via honom selia margir sviviroliga sina dao oc drengscap.

He does not, however, reproduce Walter's potentially levelling and hence anti-aristocratic dictum to the effect that 'the only nobility is that which ornaments the soul with morals' (Nobilitas sola est animum que moribus ornat - Als 1.104).

There is no evidence in the subsequent narrative that Alexander, or Darius for that matter, ever promotes the rich or the highborn in preference to the upright and the capable, or that he allows position to be bought in the ranks of his followers. Nor does he ever contravene the rule against the promotion of lowborn men of base character. In this latter connection, it is Darius Who makes the disastrous mistake of giving status and a great deal of power to Bessus and Narbazones, men who are said to

3 I The author and intended audience of Bandamanna saga would no doubt agree with this point of view since the plot involves the unwise p:omotion of a servant, Ospakr Gliirnsson, who causes great difficulty for his former master Oddr Ofeizsson. And in Breta sogur (Hauksb6k 1892-96,246), the treach~rous fratricide, King Inpricius, is criticised for giving positi~ns of power and noble titles to men who were previously of low degree; In the ultimate source for this passage (Geoffrey of Monmouth 1929,258), however, the thought is rather that the king, here called Mempricius, was such a tyrant that he killed almost all the noblemen.

106

DAVID ASHURST

have been of humbl bi h .

ti 'I I e irt (lI1fl'r proccrcs luunili de plebe locas

t, ow y men from th '

e common people placed among princes'

- Als Y.303) and who . .

h . d conspue against him once they know that

e IS oomed to 10 th

Als se e struggle against Alexander (AS 9524.33;

VI.384-91 conflated with V.302-06):

Pra [rvi er nv at seoi .

h segra at peir mcnn ihird Darij konungs er

annan et Bessus

gort . I en annan Narbazones. oc konungr hafile

mlC a af Iitlom h . . .

b . sva at peir redo nv bader fyrir miklo hOe.

era saman pat rao h'

ef h . c " at pelr scyle taka hann sialvan hondom. oc

peir ra eigi foroa AI d

ff'~ .~ h z exan rum. etla peir sva at kaupa sec

no vio ann at fe h .

vnda h era onom Danum lifanda. en ef peir fa sen

n onom etla h. .

taka iki . . pessrr vandu pr~lar at drepa drotten sinn oc

n It eptir hann oc eflaz sWan fmot Alcxandro.

This is a radical de .,' . ,

ing, the Old monstr,ltlOn of the value of Anstotle s warn-

choosin t dNor~e translator again showing his approval by

g 0 escnbe the t ' . ,

in the L ti r<lltors as vdndar [melar (not present

a In texts) thus di .

but of b " S In Icatlllg that they arc not only lowborn

ase character _ the rv-- .

petually low e type Whom nature intended for per-

status.

Alexander for his

When he hea-, part, does not forget his master's words

ears of the tr h

with the 'wi k eac ery: far from being willing to treat

. IC ed slaves' h . . II

Ing on his e sets off In hot pursuit of them, ca -

men to rescue D . d

the defeated ki anus as an act of generosity to war s

mg (AS 104 I 6-2 I; Als VII.I 12- 1 6):

Nv pa gooer fela .

til hess t gar. noe hverr sem hann rna mest af taka.

1-' a ver meg hi I

sva neisvl I em ra pa Dario. en drepa pa niOenga er

ega ecv vi(} hE' h rma

honom yvirk ann. ra rmnne manndomr at PY

mea beztum ~~~oa~' helldr en sigra hann pa cr vaJld hans var

The note of Contem t .

When Alexand h p. sounded In the word nioingar is repeated

er, avm f'l ..'

urges his men t g ar ed to save the life of DarIUS, agam

o pursue the culprits (AS 1152-5; Als VII.504-06):

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

107

scorn mikil at peir er til pess vere bornir at vera prelar fastir afotorn scyli pat fyrir beraz eptir pann micla glep er peir hava gort. at eignaz rikit eptir Darium.

Here the description of Bessus and Narbazones as born to be slaves in leg-irons looks very much like an allusion to Aristotle's speech and is certainly in line with his view that certain people are destined by nature to occupy base roles in life. This rhetoric of contempt is important not only because it shows that Alexander is still mindful of his teacher's precepts but also because it carries weight with the Macedonian soldiers, who at this point have been militating for a return to their homeland. It forms an important part of the argument by which Alexander persuades them to continue with the campaign and hence secures the conquest of the world. In taking this action, furthermore, Alexander is shouldering his responsibilities as the legitimate successor of Darius who, When a Greek soldier finds him dying, sends word for Alexander to take vengeance on the Persian traitors (AS 1094-7; Als VII.278- 79) and finally extends his right hand to the man in token that he bequeaths his empire to the Macedonian king (AS 10927-3°; Als VII.300-01). Here too the theme of universal conquest is linked to that of punishing the treacherous servitors, for in the same speech, having enjoined the vengeance that is the obligation of a true heir, Darius prays that Alexander will become sole ruler of the world (AS 10922-24; Als VII.294-96): Oc nu pa bio ec bess guoen himinrikes oc helvites aor en ec deyja. at allr heimr pione Alexandro. Thus the issue raised by Aristotle's advice against promoting men of low status is eventually made to serve a pivotal role in the narrative.

3.2.2 Spare the Humble, Crush the Proud: Judgement on Individuals. In the second section of his speech Aristotle declares that neither the love of individuals nor their wealth should deflect Alexander from giving upright judgement when hearing cases between men (AS 55-7; Als LI05-07). Again there is no evidence later in the narrative that Alexander ever infringes this rule, and so it need not detain us. Much the same may be said

108

DAVID ASflUI{ST

of Aristotle's next' 1 . .

. . pornt, w rich IS that avarice, called the mother

of VIces Uastann ' ). )

a moe tr , must not be given room at the king's

court, otherwise it will be the ruin of moral conduct and induce corrupti?'e men to neglect the laws (AS 57-12; Als I.1ll-l4). In conne~tlOn with this topic, however, it should be noted that the e;c~sslve love of riches, not within the court but in the ranks 01 .t e army, is made into an issue on several occasions and is

u tJmately dealt with b di

5.4.2). Y ra ical action on Alexander's part (see

In the Latin text b f h . . . .

, y ar t e most interesting and significae'

pronouncement of th' ,

. h '. IS second part of the speech is the senienua

wn whIch It closes' PI' .

b' . arce tumili, facilis oranti, jrange super-

urn, Spare the humbl b' id

cru h h e, e acceSSible to one who begs your ai ,

wh s . t e Proud' (Als I.115, Prit.).32 The Old Norse translator,

a In many places p hi d

and . h' ,roves irnself able to produce a well turne

pit y dIctum to m tel \IT, I ' .

thi . a c 1 VVd ter s, here chooses to emphasIse

IS Important piec f d .

. . eo a Vice by giving it a slightly more expan-

sive presentatIOn (AS 5'2-'5):

Pat r00 ec per . A' . . 'I I t scgir nstotdcs. at pu scr miukr oc linr Iitii-

a urn. auosottr oc :i b ' ..

d b gOur <ena j:mrptugom. cn haror oc uemnn

ram saumom.

Here, as in the Lati .

first clau h n sententla, the Christian connotations of the

se s ould not b II f h

final wo d e a owed to obscure the grimness 0 t e

r s.

In pronouncin . d

more apt t g JU gement on individuals Alexander proves

a crush the d h ' di

to the' prou t an to spare the humble, accor Jllg

epIsodes preser d j t

case in '. ve In the narrative The most clear-ell

POmt IS the p . h . id

puffed u bv i urns ment meted out to Bessus, whose pTl e,

p Y Ill-deserved' d him

to COVet th p. promotIOn as we have seen, lea s I

judgement ae .erslan throne. Once he has been captured, the ~alllst him is swift and merciless: Alexander berates 32 Colker places this r

military advic b me at the start of the next section which is devoted to . e, ut I prefer t '. ' . I hich

IS concerned with th o.group It WIth the preceding materia, W .

the second co e proper dIScharge ofJ'udicial roles Colker also omIts

mmaofth li .

e me as I have written it.

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

109

him for his crime and then hands him over to the brother of Darius, on whose orders he suffers a shameful death (AS125 10-26; Als VIII.335-54). Then the Old Norse translator, paraphrasing his source but expressing himself more tersely, draws attention again to ambitious pride as an important aspect of Bessus 's crime by commenting on the punishment as a fitting end for one who sought to rise above his proper station (AS 12526-27; Als 355-57): oc lycr sva hans di at hann fell pvi hera. sem hann hafoe lengra vpp klivet.

The immediately preceding episode of the narrative also gives an example of crushing the proud, but in a far more equivocal situation: Philotas, the son of Alexander's second-in-command, has been accused of treason, having for several days ignored reliable intelligence from a certain Cebalinus that a plot was afoot to kill Alexander; Alexander himself lays the charge before the assembled army and prosecutes the case with great determination but none too scrupulously, appearing with an armed company just before judgement is to be pronounced; Philotas does himself little good by making a long speech that is alternately haughty and whining; and in the end he gives details implicating himself in the plot, but only under torture (AS 11825-12429; Als VIII.80-322). For Alexander, heirless as he is, the implications of Philotas's negligence are absolutely clear, and they amount to the same pride and ambition that are soon to be punished in the person of Bessus (AS 1203-6; Als VIII. 1 17-22, the Latin referring specifically to Philotas's pride in line 121):

Cebalinus sagoe pegar er hann varo vas vio. enn Philotas einn trvoe eigi. oc sva hevir hann prutnao af pvi micla vall de er ver hovum honom fengit fhendr. at hann villde nv konungr vera.

In his defence speech, Philotas lands several telling blows on Alexander and is able to marshal some good reasons why it is unlikely that he was involved in the conspiracy; but against the central charge, that he wilfully suppressed the intelligence because he wanted the plot to succeed, the best he can manage is

110

DAVID ASIIURST

to adopt an arrogantly co t .

(AS 12234 1233 n emptuous attitude towards Cebalinus

- ; Als VIII.247-52):

En pvi er mer brugo t h

~, e at ec ava pagat yvir pesso er hann

sagoe mer. hvat ba e k h' ..'

, p . r noc ot pVI trvanda cr emn svemn segn,

vrnet er sv saugn er k iki . . .

, . sa VCI rr er litils cr veror, pviat eptir

manne ero mal metande.

Seeking to belittle th .

reveals hi . e .testImony of Cebalinus, Philotas chiefly

IS own pride: III eff t h .

to pay att ti . ec e IS saying that he is too grand

en Ion to a mere 'b ' f

so blinded b oy 0 no special rank; and he is

y arrogance (or p h

he imagI'n th er aps merely so desperate) that

es at the per ti .

his condu t i h cep IOn of his superiority will excuse

c III t e eyes of th .

haughtyar . e army. He also puts forward this

Cebalinus ghumd ent despIte the fact that there can be no doubt that a told him th t h

Philotas with . . e rut , and had reported the plot to

1 mcontrovertlbl id

_ AS 11831-32.. e eVI ence (me() scyrum iartegnum

, not m Al\) 'It thei " . .

quence alth h thi ., err original mtcrvrew, In conse-

, oug this episod th

than any oth f . e rows a worse light on Alexander

er 0 the narrati h f

bered: first th' ve, t c ollowing must be remem-

, at PhIiotas w '

his own adva t as very probably guilty of seekmg

secondly that nAalge and the king's death by ignoring the plot;

, exander wa bli d

else see disc' I' s 0 igec to take decisive action or

Ip me go to pi in hi '

eliminating hi eces III IS army; and thirdly that In

IS would-be su ' ' ,

was crushing th ccessor Alexander, haror ok oelrmn,

3 2 3 S e proud as his master had taught him to do,

'. pare the H '

totle's dictum umble: Judgement on Peoples. Ans-

d may also be und d d '

ealings with th erstoo as relevant to Alexan er s

since the se t e peoples whom he conquers - all the more so

n ence can b ' '

graphs on m'l't e grouped with the succeedIllg para-

11 ary camp' ,

Alexander I'S h aignmg, as noted above, In this arena,

s own to f If!

humble to gi u 1 all parts of the saying - to spare the

, Iveeartothe I' '

ways that are f h supp rcant, and to crush the proud -In

. 0 t e utmo t '

pnse, s Importance for his imperial enter-

, Significantly enou h

hIstorical fact) AI g (although broadly speaking it folloWS

exander's attitudes towards humbly suppli-

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

111

cant and haughtily defiant cities are established in the narrative as soon as he has become king of the Greeks, and immediately before he sets out on his Asian campaign, when Athens and Thebes rebel against him: as determined by their different actions once the royal forces have been drawn up against them, Athens is quickly forgiven but Thebes is utterly destroyed,

The rebellion of Athens is a short-lived affair and is characterised as a rejection of Alexander as the new king rather than as a reassertion of republicanism (AS 112-5; Als 1.268-72), That the Old Norse translator has no sympathy for the Athenian cause is shown by his description of Alexander's intentions, which is an addition to the Latin text, as the army rushes to the city (AS 118- 10): cetlar hann oc at lyfia beim silt ojbellde er jyrstir geroo; til bess at risa {mot honom. nema peir rioe sciott avit sin, Caught unawares by the speed of Alexander's approach, the Athenians sue for peace before a blow has been struck. This change of heart is urged upon them by a man called Eschinus, whose action gives the Old Norse translator another opportunity to reveal his Own view of things since the terms of the treaty suggested by Eschinus are rather more abject in the saga than they are in the

ic I 18

epic AS 11 -19): hann bao borgarlyoenn vpp gefaz.fyr konunge

oc bioia ser grioa sem jyrst,33 The immediate, complete and ~umble surrender of the city placates Alexander; and all the more Joyfully for the fact that the Athenians are his own countrymen, he grants them the reconciliation for which they have meekly petitioned him (AS 1121-22; Als 1.280-81): ba veitte hann peim pat blioliga, sem peir baoo hann miuklega.

Having established this point with the Athenians (but the opposite one with the Thebans, as discussed in 3,2.4 below), Alexander is able to begin his conquest of Asia by making significant territorial gains without bloodshed, since the cities of Cilicia, hearing that he is both mighty and peaceable, give themselves up voluntarily into his power. Both Walter and his Old Norse translator draw attention to this fact; but of the two, the

33 As Walter has it (Als I.278), Eschinus merely 'declared nothing safer than

peace' (pace ostendit nil tucius esse),

112

DAVID ASIIURST

saga writer, with his reference to tljripsett rd/), makes it somewhat clearer than does Walter that these events were not fortuitous but resulted from a policy decision on Alexander's part (AS 157-14; Als L447-51):

I>esso_nest stefnir konungr til pcira borga er nalegastar vorc oc peir menn er p<cr borgir bygoo par sem beir spurdo at konungr sa enn vtlennde var sva fridsamr oc peir visso po at

hann hafO iki

, e nu inn afla, pa toko peir sniallt rao. oe gefaz upp

sIalfkrafa ivalld konungs pess. er mea diupsettu rade fek sva gort at hann pyrmoe ovinom sinom. oe lagae pa po undir sec bardaga laust.

It should be .

. mentioned here that the immediate evidence that

convmces the 't d II 1

CI y- we ers that Alexander will be a peaceab e

conqueror is that h h h

' e as commanded his men not to plunder t e

regron wh: h he h' .

46) ' .. IC e as churned for himself (AS 154-7; Als 1.443-

. WIthm the stru t ' f' 't

. A CUre 0 the narratIve as a whole, however, I

IS lexander's tr t f

hi I . ea ment of the Athenians that sets the pattern lor

IS el11ent treatm t f "

Thi . en 0 cines that surrender to him.

IS pohcy who h . d

. ,IC IS of such strategic benefit to Alexan er;

IS at root erhi I . .

ti ca as well as tactical: it fulfils Aristotle's 1I1Junc-

Ion to spare the h b .

wh '. urn Ie - the humble in this case being those

o WillIngly bmi

and . su mit. The pattern thus laid down in Athens

confIrmed in Cili . h t

Al ' I icra, furthermore, is repeated throug au

exander scare h .

in thi er: t ere is no change of heart or degeneratIOn

IS respect S .

is . . panng the humble, in the sense defined here,

Just as much a . . . t

Bab I pnonty when Alexander is welcomed 111 0

yon, at the cent I . . C'I' ia

at th ra pOmt of the narrative as it is III IIC

e Outset of th. '

for Alexa d e campaign, although the moral consequences

Policy fi nd ~r are different there (see 5.1-3)' and of course the

111 s Its uln 'h

wiUing Imate fUlfilment when Alexander receiveS t e

surrender of th . ith a

gentle hand . e entire world and promises to rule WI

Th ' as ~ISCussed above (1.2.2).

at the pohcy f . . a

moral ch . . 0 spanng the humble supplicant rema1l1s

Olce whICh d . I b n-

efit is show b oes not always coincide with matena e

n y the famous episode in which Medates, the goV-

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

113

emor of Uxia, pleads for mercy at Alexander's hands. This situation differs from that of the Cilician cities in that Uxia has resisted Alexander and has been conquered by siege; the citizens expect to be massacred, but at this point Medates gets a message through to Sisigambis, the mother of Darius, who is Medates' relative by marriage and is in Alexander's custody. He begs her to intercede with the conqueror on his behalf. She does so with reluctance and much humility, as befits a war captive, at which Alexander pardons Medates and his people, even going so far as to revoke the taxes levied on the city (AS 8811-899; Als VI. I 13-41). The motives for generosity and mercy, here, are complicated by Alexander's relationship with Sisigambis, it being stressed repeatedly that the Persian queen is treated like the Macedonian's own mother (AS 8818-19and 8910-13; Als VI.l18-19 and VI.142-44). Nevertheless the episode remains a prime example of Alexander's willingness to grant the plea of a supplicant who approaches him in humility, for the interpretation placed on his actions by the Old Norse translator emphasises the conqueror's genuine mercy as well as his regard for Sisigambis (AS 893-5): her ma sia hversv micla mil/de oc staofeste konungrenn hafoe mea ser. This sentence is also notable for omitting the word tunc, 'at that time', from the Latin original (Als VI.135), which could be taken to imply that Alexander subsequently lost the virtues that are being displayed in this episode. An alteration of this nature could, of course, be the result of textual corruption; but wherever possible we must accept the Old Norse text that we have, and in this case we may note that it accords with Alexander's behaviour later in the narrative, whereas the Latin statement, if the implications of tunc are pressed, is at odds with what follows. This being so, Alexander's dealings with Medates in the saga stand as proof that his mercy was a genuine virtue which had become and remained part of his nature, and that his mildness towards those who surrendered themselves was ethical rather than merely strategic or a matter of personal affection.

3.2.4 Crush the Proud: Judgement on Peoples. The crushing of Thebes stands in contrast with the forgiving of Athens

114

DAVID ASHURST

as the episode that lays the pattern for Alexander's treatment

of peoples who . t h' .

. resis rrn with haughty defiance. Unlike the

AthenIans the men f Th b .

, 0 e es deny Alexander access to the city

and rush to defend their walls, prompting the Old Norse transla-

tor to assert a litt! d' .

, e more Irectly than Walter, that their action

beer an example of pride (dram b) and that mercy would have

een available to the h .

h d h m, as to t err Athenian allies if only they

. a umbled themselves and asked forgiveness (AS 122-8, addmg extra emphasis to Als 1.288-92):

oc efThebane h fa .

h . e e tecet slict raa sem Athenienses pa mynde

pelr hafa fengit to;" " .

. s 0 vao reidi konungs. oc funnet par miscunn

oc mIllde sern gno fvri . . E

P '. g var ynr ef mlUclcga vcrc epnr lei tao. n

Uhl at peir sY~do konungc mikinn motgang. pa reyndo peir pat

at ann kunnt refsa h' h" . .

perm pcira dirfd, oc n)(lra peira drambe.

The author's appr I f h . . d '. ova 0 t e Impending retribution is quite eVIent in thIs passage' b t i d"

th I ' u m a dItlOn it is made fully explicit once

e wa Is of the city h: b .

all b ave een demolIshed and the houses have

een burnt (AS 1320-23; Als 1.349-52):

SiOan er konun h r;,. • . .~

h fa gr aroc makhga hcfnt Thcbanis peira dlrfu.

~c a e par sva kent landz monnum at piona nyiom konunge. pa setr hann til I d il

h .f'. an z at geta ba menn er honom botto vel tt

pess lalIllIr. p

After the city h f. I

mercy' d as a len, but before it is destroyed a plea for

IS rna e by th Th ' .

speech th fi e eban poet Deades (Cleades in Als). HIS

, e irst of rna . . h

narrative f 11 ny specImens of ineffectual rhetoric III t e

there ex' 't a s ~n deaf ears, a fact which shows above all that IS sa pomr of

already p d no return beyond which the Thebans have

asse . their s I' . .

not suff" I' upp rcation comes too late or perhaps IS

IClent y hu bl

This is log' I rn e, and now their pride must be crushed.

rca enough si '. . it

ed and d'· ince It IS the nature of mercy to be [irm -

IsCretlOnary -' f '. . .

sible bec' III illIte and ullIversal mercy being Impos-

ause It Would b .

consideratio heat odds with justice. In addition to thIS

n, owever it b I

tactical blu d . .' can e seen that Deades makes severa

n ers III hIS sp h P' . . If

eec. irst, lllstead of throwing hlmse

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

115

and his fellow citizens simply and abjectly at Alexander's feet, he argues that Thebes should be spared for the sake of its ancient glory - pride again - as the city where Hercules was raised and as the birth-place of the god Bacchus; and the reference to Bacchus is particularly unfortunate since Aristotle specifically warned the young Alexander against the influence of this deity (AS 76-1°; Als I.l67-69). Secondly, Deades ill-advisedly alludes to Aristotle by name, paraphrasing his advice rather too selectively (AS 132-5; Als 1.331-34):

Lat per ihug koma at Aristotiles fostr fader pinn kendi per pat rad at pu scylldir vera goor bona purptugom oc pyrma sigrooorn,

This allusion to Aristotle is bound to prompt the thought that the philosopher did not urge his charge only to hear the prayers of the supplicant but also to crush the proud. Aristotle took it for granted in his advice, furthermore, that defiant cities were to be levelled to the ground (AS 611-14, intensifying Als I.144-46):

Nu kemr par at borgirnar gefaz vpp ipitt valId. eda [m hefir at iorou lagt pa er eigi villdv sialfkrafa upp gefaz. pa scalltu vppluka fe hirozlom pinom,

This is precisely what Alexander does to Thebes; hence, in doling out so terrible a punishment to the city, he is following his master's teaching quite faithfully, despite what Deades says.

To many people today, and for excellent reasons, the total destruction of a city and the killing or enslavement of all its inhabitants must appear to be essentially immoral acts for which there can be no justification. It would not have seemed so to the aUdiences of Alexanders saga, however. Apart from the words of the fictional Aristotle and the approval of the Old Norse translator, they would also have taken into account the testimony of Scripture. Joshua, for example, destroyed the populations of several cities in Canaan with the express assistance of God; most famously this occurred at Jericho where the walls were toppled

116

DAVID ASHURST

by divine intervention, after which the massacre began (Stjorn 1862, 361; Joshua 6:20-21, 24 and 27):

JOsve oc hans hermenn taka borg Jericho oc drapv sva konvr sem karla. born oc bvsmala. navt oc savoi. asna oc reyki. oc alit pat er kvikt var i henni. Ok sidan leggia beir e1ld i borgina ?C brenna alia lvti ba sem par vorv vtan gvll oc silfr eir DC lam. [ ... J Nv var gva drottinn mea Josve oc vard harm nafnfregr mer vm allan haiim.

From a later biblical age there is also the case of Judas Mac-

cabeus Who pi d d .

. ' un ere and destroyed the city of Ephron, kill-

Ihng all the males, because the citizens refused to let him pass

t rough in pe (I M

35 3 ace accabees 5:46-51; Gyoinga saga 1995,

- ~). B?th the VUlgate and the Gy()inga saga texts display a certam gnm relish c hi

J lor t IS event, noting that after the massacre

udas and his

b di men Were able to walk through the city over the

a nles o~ the dead (1 Maccabees 5:51; Gyr)inga saga 1995,36).

espJte th bibf .

ese I rca] examples, Walter and his Old Norse

translator mak . if

Al e some effort to explain if not to Just! y,

. exan?er'~ implacable ferocity towards Thebes: while the king IS C~~Sldenng how to besiege the city leaders from the sur~oun mg regions come to him and co~plain that the Thebans h ave always been the SOurce of much trouble in the land and

ave committed t 95

307) T ou rages of various kinds (AS 129-14; Als 1.2 -

. he reSUlt' th A b

h d . IS at lexander's attitude towards The es

ar ens and hIS act' '. . h

ment f IOn agamst It takes on the nature of a pums -

resp tor So~ething besides its arrogant defiance of him. In this

ec , as In others th d the

patte h . ,e estruction of Thebes lays down

du . rn t at wIll be fallowed in the annihilation of other cities

nng the COurse of AI, . lly

destro d b exander s career. Hence Tyre IS rota

ye ecause it I 'n

return fa th . s peop e not only refuse to accept peace I

ies Who h err surrender but also kill the Macedonian emissar-

ave been sent t di h king

Contrave ti a ISCUSS terms with them, a s OC I

Ale dn ~on of accepted rules (AS 4716-28. Als III.292-30l).

xan er s reacti . . ' 11

genocid . b . . on to this IS to order what we would now ca

e, ur rn Its Context it must be seen as a moral response

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

117

moderated by a pious respect for the (medieval) laws of sanctuary (AS 4728-3°; Ais III.301-02):

oc pvi bior Alexander konungr at drepa scyle sem sciotast ma allt fole fborgenne. fyr vtan pat er fheilog hof komez.

Hence also Persepolis is burnt to the ground not, as in Curt. V. vii.4- 11, as a shameful act instigated by a courtesan during a drunken revel, but as a calculated punishment for an insult that is also an atrocity: as Alexander nears the city with his forces, the men of Persepolis send out to meet him some three thousand Macedonians captives who have been horribly mutilated (AS 915- 12; Ais VI.l96-204). Walter expresses uncertainty as to whether even this appalling act of defiance justifies Alexander's response (Als VI.196-97); the Old Norse translator, however, records no such doubt, being content simply to state that this was the reason why Alexander was so much sterner to this place than to any other (sva miclo grimmare pessom stao en hveriom annasa - AS 915-6).34 Finally there is also the case of the Sudracae, the assault on Whose citadel is the last engagement to be described individually in the narrative: this time the Macedonians, acting on their own initiative rather than on their king's orders, slay every human being (jJeir drepa hvert manz barn) as an act of vengeance because they think that Alexander has been killed - and he has, in fact, sustained a near-fatal wound (AS 14113-25; Als IX.442-52).

Apart from the fact that all these massacres are to some extent ethically motivated by the need to punish an act other than that of pure defiance, perhaps the most significant point to be made in connection with them is that they are spread throughout the whole of Alexander's career. There is no suggestion whatsoever that Alexander became either more or less bloody in this respect as his power increased. On the contrary, it is clear that to deal

34 Alexander can be said to have been even sterner towards Persepolis than towards Tyre, where he ordered all the people to be killed, because in the case of Persepolis not only were the people exterminated, according to the saga, but also every single stone of the walls was thrown into the river (AS 903-4, not in Als; and AS 9034_914, based loosely on Als VI.193-195).

118

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

119

with peoples in thi . , ,

IS way was Alexander's policy from first to

I~st, and that he learned this policy from Aristotle, who taught

him to crush the proud d I I ' , , '

an to eve those cines that did not give

themselves up voluntarily into his power,

, ~,2,5 Another View of the Means to Empire. At this point

It will be appro . t, ,

" pna e to mentIon that Alexander's overall policy

of WlUnlUg the I' , ,

h ' comp rant with offers of peace whilst crushing

t e defIant by for f ' " ,

ce 0 arms bears a certam similarity to the

methods by whi h H ldr hsi " ,

, c ara r harfagn gamed his empire III Norway

aCCOrdlUg to th bri f k' ,

, "e ne s etch found m Fagrskinna. There IS noth-

lUg sUrpnslUg ab t thi .

k ou IS, since the policy is the obvious one now

nown as 'carrot d ick'

, an stic ; however the Fagrskinna passage IS worth quoting b " f

H I ecause of Its author's evident approval 0

ara dr, and becau " I' ,

H'k ' se It IS ikely to have been known to Kmg

a on gamh and hi M ' ,

build IS son agnus, themselves successful emplre-

ers and the possibl '. 35 N t

that lik Al ,e rec.picnts of Alexanders saga, 0 e

cap't alis exander s, Haraldr's policy includes the flexibility to I a rse on good f

ki ,ortune, and that it is taken for granted that a

mg should mcreas the si ,

1985 64 e e SIze of his realm if he can (Fagrskrnna

, -65):

cal sensibility. The account in Fagrskinna has ethical assumptions underlying it, of course, but it is not the author's apparent intention to present his heathen king as one who is motivated by moral concerns; the author of Alexanders saga, in contrast, is heavily committed to presenting a moral dimension to the pursuit of empire, To state the issue bluntly: Haraldr offers friendship to some and battle to others because that is how he is and how he can achieve his goal; but Alexander spares the humble and crushes the proud because that is how he can achieve his goal while fulfilling the ethical doctrines of Aristotle.

3,2,6 The Rhetoric of Courage and Loyalty. Continuing with his speech and instructing the boy who is to be the world's most outstanding general, Aristotle now turns his attention to military matters (AS 515-19):

Flyt opt or stad herbuoer pinar, pviat pa er ovinom pinom ohggt via per at sia er pu ert scommom isama stao. Optliga scaltu oc fylkia lioi pino at pat neme bardaga list. oc veniz vapnfime. Haurd ahlaup scaltu veita vvinom pinom.

Mea !Jessu ollu v "h ' , ' ,;-;01

I 'fa eror ann agretr ok haldsamr a sinm IQuur-

ei .ok enn eykr h fki ' fi

k: ann n It a marga lund sva scm dreml Ill-

nas , sumr mea "0

h' , , orrostum, sumt mea fagrmreli ok vingan VI

pa, er aor stJ6m a 0

dl u u, surnt mea haminziu hlutum sumt me

~Uprreoum ok I ' , bJ '

angn fynrretlan eda nokkurs atburdar,

The policies of the ' ,

empire ar basi two kmgs, as methods for obtaimng an

, e aSlcalIy th iff

ence bet e same; there is, however, a vital dl rer-

Ween the two hi h ' ki a

makes n .' w IC IS that the author of Fagrs inn

o suggestion th H hi g

other than d "at araldr is behaving with anyt l~

etermmatlOn ' , III

pursuing a ' ' cunnmg and admirable opportUnIsm

, matenal go I h a

Insists that hi a .w ereas the author of Alexanders sag

~s protagonist unites all these things with an ethi- 35 fl'k

a onar saga (Sturl ' ,

deathbed he h d a Porilarson 1887, 354) says that as Hakon lay on hIS

a read to hi y

referred to as 'K rrn a vernacular history of the kings of Norwa ,

onungatal'

- presumably Fagrskinna.

This replaces the epic's single line I.116: Castra moue, turmas instaura, transfer in hostem, 'Shift camp, revitalise the troops, advance on the foe,' It can be seen, then, that Walter is content with a flourish whereas the Old Norse translator wants real, definite instructions no matter how basic as logistical advice they may sound to modem readers. This section of the speech (AS 515_611; Als I.116-43), however, turns out to be concerned chiefly with the methods by which Alexander is to impose his will on his troops, either by word or by example. The purpose behind the application of these methods is that of gaining victories, of course, or at least of avoiding defeats; but the methods themselves depend heavily on the virtue of courage, and to a lesser extent on that of loyalty, together with an eager willingness to inflict damage on the enemy - which is itself presented as a desideratum, as implied by the reference to 'fierce attacks' in the saga passage just quoted.

120

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

121

Courage is to be exhibited even if the commander is too weak to participate fully in the fighting: to encourage his troops he must at least show himself armed for battle and cheerful in ?em~ano.ur (AS 523-24; Als 1. I 20). Especially if he finds himself

m this sItuation b t . hi . . d

' u not In t IS situation only, a cornman er

must also demonst t . . . h

ra e courage In the form of fiery resolve In t e

speeches with which he incites his men (AS 524-29; Als I.121-27)

lattu tunguna beri k fli . . h

. enaz a a iga mea eoianar ordino. po at on-

dl? .se. vanafla til at styra sverdino, Opt hefir haufOingiom

mlklt tioaj at beri . I'

. enaz at ems mea framegglan. oc ef evatsam Ig

bardaga Iyco s t h . .

. . cy r ennum seek ibringo. pa era betri I¢klllng

til en bhOligar fort I h <'1\' • ..'

o or aUlUmglans mea snarpligri at eoran.

If he is capable f " .

. 0 partIcIpatIng in the fighting however, cour-

age IS to be man' f t db' f

. I es e a ove all in the classic requirement 0 a

commander tn Pd'

th I d . re-mo ern warfare, namely that he should be III

e ea WhIle tt ki .

(AS 530_62. a ac mg and In the rear if it comes to a retreat

fy t fl ' Als 1.128-31): E/ ovinir binir Jlyia. pa recou oc

rs r ottann nu b I

s'o . es sva at at i bitt lid kome Jlottenn. pa sea tu

I arsi a hel hopa 36 A f

th . s to loyalty, it is the virtue on the part 0

e commander's m h' . f

a ret . en w ich IS to be relied upon in the case 0

reat, for It unde li h

that will r ies and complements the sense of same

I prevent them f b '. 62-4. Als

1.131-32): rom a andonmg their leader (AS ,

if the enemy shows the least slackening of the pursuit (AS 67-11; Als I.l36-43):

Ef pu ser at peir letiaz a eptir forenne. pa scalltu fyrstr aptr snua pinom hesti. oc rida avyine pin a diarflega. oc neyta pa sveroz pins snarplega. oc sva akaflega med pi no ]joe fram vaoa. at varIa gefiz peim tom til at kalla sec sigrada.

oc lat pina ridd h .

P . era pat sia at per er afar trautt at renna. oc man

.elm pa synaz hofoo scorn at renna sva sviuirdlega undan

smum konunge.

Finally the comb' .

men's 10 I . mahan of personal courage and reliance on the

this sec/a ty, IS emphasised by Aristotle in the last sentence of ~ the means by which a retreat can be turned around 36 The L f

a In text refers rath dr'S

men abandon the . er to a hypothetical situation in which Alexan e

follows in who hP~r~uIt too soon; but this does not seem to fit with what

t ' IC It IS the e Old Norse

ranSlator has d nemy Who are the pursuers. The

rna e Walter's thought more logical.

In the subsequent narrative Alexander fulfils all these prescriptions. His courage is never called into question, not even in the famous episode of his sleepless night before the Battle of Arbela, presented here as caused by revolving the many possibilities of tactics rather than as a matter of fear (AS 6826_692; Als. IY.391-400). Throughout his career it is his habit to lead the attack from the front: in the account of the first set-piece battle, at Issus, he is the first to charge and the first to draw blood (AS 3720-21 and 388-10; Als II1.4-6 and II1.24-27); and in his last narrated engagement, at the citadel of the Sudracae, he is first up onto the walls (AS 1397-8; Als IX.344-46). When the enemy turns to flight at Arbela, Alexander certainly fulfils Aristotle's injunction to be first in pursuit, although he does so with such eagerness that he leaves most of his men behind (Als V.307 -11; AS 791-5, this passage falling in the lacuna of AM 519a 4tO). As to delaying a retreat or rallying the troops to save them from rout, Alexander never finds himself in the position of having to do such things. On this subject, as in the case of promoting the unworthy, it is Darius who illustrates the cogency of Aristotle's advice by doing the opposite: he twice flees the field of battle, spreading panic in his own ranks on the first occasion in particular (AS 4329_4424 and 7828_79', the second passage again falling in the lacuna; Als IIL189-214 and V.283-98); and on a third occasion, while being pursued by Alexander, he tries unsuccessfully to cajole his men into a last stand (AS 943_9514; Als V1.311-69), only to abandon the idea and to continue his flight.

The speech just mentioned, in which Darius tries to raIly his men for a suicidal attack on their enemies, stands as an example of his inability to 'let the tongue fight fiercely, with words of

122

DAVID ASHURST

incitement' as A ist tl .

, . ns 0 e puts It. There are several other such

~xa7Ples, most notably the speech that Darius makes before the altt e ofIssus (AS 2929_312°; Als 11.325-71) in which he not only

re ates a dream ab t AI .

ou exander that clearly portends an evil

outcome for himself b I

ibili , ut a so alludes again and again to the pos-

S! ! rty that the m h .

th en w om he IS addressing will run away from

e combat Far fr I .

th . om re ying on their loyalty Darius hurls a

. reat at them in the hope of preventing their perfidious cowardIce - and as b d I k

w d a uc would have it these tum out to be the last

AI~\IS306f9th7e speech, which is cut short at this point (AS 3118-2°;

. - 1): sver ee t; fi I . 'k' t

h pess re so ena er vpp renn ivaro n I a

Ver sem aflotta I' .

co t snyr sea mtnn fiandmaor vera. Alexander, III

n rast, always sue ds i h h

out th cee s In t e purpose of his rhetoric throug -

e saga and is n' h

Issu ' . ever more Impressive than in his speec at

s, parallelIng that f D' . . ,

lov d 0 arms, In which he invokes hIS men s

e an loyalty as r· . I' '. •

rni ti ' easons lor fighting with all the more deter-

na Ion (AS 357-17; Als II.465-74):

ba mon ec reyna h .

I, vesso mroc per hin1et urn mek er ec se

s 10 Svero brote hli d

h n en rvar klofnar af storom hoggom. Hon

auggvanda m '1' .

h . an Vila syna. oc svcrd man sanna sem reitt er

vessv nuoc yor k

erv . ernr Alexander mug. Sigreo nu pa er pegar

sem sigraoer .. ~ . h

reio' I' se. vmo at sialfs sins fiandrnadr er sa er ann

rr s lolega sve 0 ,. . . [if

er h . r at uvm smorn. oc scemma viII sa Silt I.

ann lenglr Iif ,. , a

motst ~ uvrna- SInS. oc engi er pat millde at pyrrn

ovomonnum si fb If er

oc macle afh mom I ardaga. bung er su hond sia re s

g ogs. er hon vegr sparlega.

MOdem pacifists and h .

Words such h t err sympathisers will wish to adduce

as t ese as id Iy a

ruthless kil] . eVI ence that Alexander was not on

I er (whIch h I I h ir

medieval e c ear y was) but also immoral. In t e

. Context ho e

disciple of hi ' wever, these words show him to be a tru

incite fiere IS preceptor, fighting by means of the tongue to

he attacks on th 'eld

t eir sWord e enemy, and urging his men to WI

s as smartly A' . If

to do. as nstotle had urged Alexander hlmse

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

123

3.2.7 The Division of Booty. Beginning with the instructions already quoted (section 3.2.4) concerning what to do when a city is taken, Aristotle now makes a series of observations concerning a leader's duty to be generous towards his men (AS 6"-26; Als I. 144-63): the spoils of conquest must be distributed very liberally so that the soldiers will be happy despite the pain and fatigue of battle; no diminution of love between them and their commander must be allowed even if there is a shortage of booty, for in that case promises must be made, to be fulfilled at the earliest opportunity; and these matters must not be neglected, because a tight-fisted leader is never safe whereas a generous one is defended by his munificence as if by a stout wall.

Except for one omission discussed below, the text as it stands in the saga paraphrases Walter's ideas point by point, rather fully and with unusual willingness to reproduce the Latinate rhetoric and imagery of the source - a fact which probably indicates that this section of the speech was a significant one for the translator or his patron. It is chiefly the imagery which is responsible for what may strike the modem reader as an ironic or cynical element undermining the ethical nature of the advice, as exemplified by the following (AS 613-18):

pa scalltu vppluka fe hirozlom pinom, oc gefa atver hendr riddoronom. oc smyria sva sar peira mea giofonom. pviat eigi parftu aora Irecning at fa lioino. helldr en mykia sar oc siukan hvg mea gulleno, sva f:er aurlyndr mack siukom bot unnet oc auokyfingr oreiganom.

The tone that prompts a suspicion of irony here has been carried Over, along with the metaphors, from Als J.l46-51, where it may represent nothing more than rhetorical flamboyance. Two subsequent lines in the epic (Als I.156-57), however, elaborate the benefits of generosity in much more clearly cynical terms, and are not present in the saga - the omission mentioned above:

Munus enim mores confert, irretit auaros, Occultat uicium, genus auget, subicit hostem.

124

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

125

For a gift con~ers good I' . . . .

. qua rues, It ensnares the miserlj, It

conceals a fault, it heightens birth, it subdues the foe, (Prit,)

Here irony is part' I I

, , ICU ar y to be suspected in the statement that a

gift IS capable of h 'h' " , ,

b elg tening a man s birth which must logIcally

e a fixed attribute I ddi '

I ' n a ttion, the word munus could be trans-

tate~ elsewhere as 'duty' or 'employment' (LS, nzunus I), thus

ummg the assertio th ' ,

b ' n at munus confers good qualities' mto an

o vhlOuSly edifying maxim; but in the context of the sentence as

a w ole such a t I' ,

, h rans anon IS not viable, and we are therefore left

wit a more per pi '

II h exmg statement about 'a gift', which appears

ate more startf if ' bl mg I we render mores as 'morals'. It is POSSI-

e, of course that th I' '

h d d ' ese two mes, which form a complete unit,

a rop~ed out of the text from which the Old Norse translator

was workmg or tho t th '

I h ,<l e translator passed over them by accident

n t e absence of d fini ,

th h " e mrte evidence, however, we must assume

at t e omIsSion f h '" ' h

' , rom t e saga IS intentional. Hence, gIven t e

IronIC nature of wh t h b ' '

Iik I a as ccn omitted from the translation, It IS

ley that the sente '.' hi h ' i:

value ' nces w IC rernarn are to be accepted at lace

as et~lcal advice free from irony,

AcceptmgA ist I ' h t

ns ot e s words at face value then it is clear t a

young Alexand is bel "d'

, er IS eing urged to secure the loyalty and abe 1-

ence of hIS subie t th f

Al J c s rough a kind of bribery. Early audiences 0

exanders sag ld '

th ffecr: a wou not have found the idea of a king bUYlllg

e a ectlOn and f It f hi

ceptabl . f ea y 0 hIS men in any way strange or unac-

so' e. or them the economic basis of an aristocratic military

ciety Was not at dd . , r

of I lOS with the ethical nature of generosIty, 0

oya ty, Innum bl d as

evid era e Old Norse texts could be adduce

ence for this f t b m

especial! ,ac; ut here I shall mention two that see

emph ,y pertment. Breta sogur (Hauksb6k 1892-96, 255)

aSlses the obedl his

gene ' lence that Brennir could count on due to

roslty, after he h d i h the

tightfist d S' . a III erited the realm of Burgunia from

e egmus jarl:

iallinn hafhi 'J\ . h nn

g f '1' veno fastr maar en Brennir var sva orr at a

a a tvrer hend h ' h vin-

r venvm er pigia villdi. gerdiz hann pa

sell sva at pa villdi hverr sitia ok standa i landinv sem hann villdi,

On the basis of this, we are told, Brennir was soon able to lead a military expedition against Britain. In contrast, Hdkonar saga (Sturla P6rdarson 1887, 295) emphasises not the obedience but the great and genuine popularity which Magnus Hakonarson achieved through generous gift-giving on the occasion of his investiture as king in 1257:

Hann gaf ollum inurn beztum monnum sremiligar gjafir, peim sem f booi hans voru. Vard hann af pvf pegar st6rliga vinsrell.

Since this same King Magnus, who may well have commissioned Alexanders saga, was certainly the commissioner of Hdkonar saga, it is apparent that he expected to be commended for having bought his popularity in this way, much as Aristotle urges Alexander to do; in short, he and his courtiers viewed it as a morally acceptable, as well as a politic, act.

For his part, Alexander fulfils Aristotle's teaching to the letter, which he is all the more able and willing to do since his own major concern is for fame rather than wealth (see 2,2.2). Particularly on the occasions of the two major battles he spurs his men on with the promise of booty and discharges his promise promptly When the conflict has ceased, In his speech before the onset at Issus he assures the army that he will take no portion of the spoils for himself (AS 353°-361; Als II.484-6):

Bardagans viI ec luttakare vera rned ydr, en herfangsens eigi. pvi scolon er med yor scipta. At fullo vinnz mer agetio eitt sarnan, fiarens ann ec ydr en mer fregoarennar.

The slaughter has hardly finished before Alexander divides the spoils, which are magnificent (AS 4424_451; Als III.215-22):

Sioan er Grickiom leiddiz at reka flottann. pa sliora peir sveroen sodd af manndrape. oc nu bidr Alexander konungr at peir scyle saman sopa herfangino. [ ... ] At saman komnom

126

DAVID ASHURST

127

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

herfanginom sciptir Al

Nu klyfia heir hesta . exander konungr feno mea !ioe sino.

p sma oc hlada f .

trooa secke sina par til er . v~gna a guIle oc gersimum

bondom peim peir spyia or ser gulleno. oc hafna

er geta scylldo fengens fiar.

Before the Battle of Arbela Al .

that all the spoils will b hei exander again promises his men

b let em a d thi .

latant in using thei desi ,n IS time he is even more

. elr eSlre fo . h

mg them with r nc es as a means of inspir-

greater dete '. .

IV.571-76): rmmanon to fight (AS 733°_742; Als

on which occasion fighting breaks out among the troops (AS 9014-25; Als VI.173-84). Nor is Alexander himself exempt from criticism in connection with the deleterious effects of riches once he has taken control of wealthy lands and their treasure-filled cities: he is declared to have suffered a loss of moral fibre when brought into contact with the luxuries of Babylon (AS 8428_852; ~ls VI.16-21), and the passage in which this is said is anticipated In remarks made after the division of the booty at Issus (AS 4521_ 464; Als III.241-57). The nature and extent of this loss, however, are subjects that are to be discussed at length in chapter 5. What matters for the present discussion is the fact that Alexander never ceases to fulfil Aristotle's injunction to be generous towards the army, even though the advice promotes greed among the common men and occasionally results in lapses of discipline. On this point the teaching that is put into the mouth of the pagan philosopher is at odds with the most stringent doctrine of the Church, but it is good enough for the pagan general.

3.2.8 Moderation. The concluding section of Aristotle's speech, introduced in the original version by the words Cetera quid moneam? ('What else may I advise?' - Als 1.164) looks at the topic of personal temperance before recapitulating the matter of a king's duty of dispensing justice righteously and in accordance with the law. The consideration of Alexander'S compliance with the maxims given here is a major subject that again belongs ~n chapter 5, so for the present I shall confine myself to outlinIng the substance of Aristotle's advice, mentioning a few matters of secondary interest and pointing out how some details of the treatment fit in with the general scheme of Alexander'S imperial career.

Aristotle's first concern in this section is to warn the young Alexander against the excessive drinking of wine and against thinking too much about women (AS 73-6; Als 1.164-66). Nothing is more damaging to morality, he says, than women and drunkenness (AS 711-13): eigi ero peir lvtir er meirr jyr komi gooo siojeroi en konornar oc ofdrykian. Here the reference to 'women', rather than to the vice of fornication, is not found in the corresponding

En per megot nu vel oc Ie I ..

sar pioair hava t ega eignaz allan pann aud er jJes-

saman boret f

mea storom ho c' e sveroen erv lyden. oc andsvara

til ggvm legIOrnum hu h' .. .'

I draps oc drey' g perm er eigi pyrstir mmnr

ra VVIna si .

pat herfang er p nna. en til gullz oc gcrsima. Alit

vart, er megot her sia oc fa. seal ydart vera en eigi

And following the .

. VIctory as th

pomt out Alex d ' e narrator takes the trouble to

h ' an er shows th h . .

t e means to exe '. at e lacks neither generosity nor

rcrse It (AS 828-12; Als V.431-33):

Pat er nu at segia fra Al

fange mea Me' e~andro konunge at hann sciptir her-

dvaIiz fum notu smu .ipelre borg er Darius konungr hafde c Ina epnr ba d '1 lOng ne vilia at ev . r agann, scortir hann nu hvarke u

g a hvenom yfren ervedes latin,

Although the t ki

t . a mg of bo t .

onous soldiers th 0 Y was normal behaviour for VIC-

it rough out th M'

I S moral probl e iddle Ages, it was not without

th ems When vi d .

e Teacher in El . . iewe In the light of Christianity, as

declares that th u~ld~nus (1989, 108) makes clear when he

th ere IS IIttl

ey grow rich th e good to be said of knights because

riooara (Magifter;o;::rh warf~re: (r:ir~ipvlvf) Hvat Ikillov vm afhernaae It' got PVI atpeir lioa via ran ok (llog/alz I

N . IS not su " r

orse translato .. ~nsIng, therefore, that Walter and his Old

g r cntIclse Al der ' . d

reed When th . exan er s men for their unbndle

451-4 e spoIls ar di id

; Als III.223-24) e IV~ ed after the Battle of Issus (AS

and again when Persepolis is plundered,

/

------

128

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

129

sent~n~e o~ the Source (Als 1.172); similarly the instruction Lat oe elgl helmslega konornar Izvgsvkia eoa vanmegna sterkian hug (AS 75-6) replaces the follow-ing from the Latin text (Als I 165-66)' n fi .

, . . ee ortu; pectora frangat I Mentis morbus amat,

Nor let love, a disease of the mind, break your strong heart.'

In the second quotation, the substitution of 'women' in place of 'love' could well come from the wish to utilise an aphorism of the type attested by Brynhildr's advice to Siguror in VQlsunga saga (1965, 40):

passage a strict logic need not apply; in the A lexandreis , however, an association is subsequently established between the image of reins and the idea of world conquest when Darius taunts Alexander by sending him a child's ball along with a set of reins of the kind used to train infants to walk, and Alexander responds by saying that the ball signifies the spherical shape of the earth which he will conquer, while the reins indicate the bridle which he will place on the Persians (Als II.36-42). Unfortunately the saga has lost this association, since a whip has been substituted for the reins in the Old Norse account of the exchange between Alexander and Darius (AS 1931_201). But it may well be thought that the phrase heimsins taumalag is sufficiently inclusive or at least sufficiently suggestive in its own right; and if Aristotle's maxim is accepted as the first reference to a programme of world conquest, the most significant fact to note about it is that it occurs as part of a statement that universal emperors must be able to moderate their desires. Self-control does not ethically preclude a wish to control the world, we are being told, but the wish to control the world, to be ethical, must include the determination to control oneself.

3.2.9 The Process of Law. In his final maxims Aristotle returns to the subject of justice, which must be tempered with

1618 E"

mercy according to the Old Norse translator (AS 7 - ) - 19l

seal po rettl¢tit eitt saman. pviat par via seal tempra miscunnella - this statement standing in place of Als 1.178, which refers not to mercy but to dutifulness, modesty and respect for what is right (pietas, pudor et reuerentia reeti). Another small but telling change is the addition of a statement that Alexander should ransack books to acquire multifaceted learning (Optlega seal/tv ranzaka ritnengar ef pu villt margvitr veroa - AS 718-19) - highly appropriate if Alexanders saga was intended for King Magnus Hakonarson or his father. The remark is clearly meant to be distinct from the instruction to sweat at the law (Legibus insuda - Als 1.180), since this Latin clause is translated in the next sentence of the saga (719-20): Laugen scalltu per oe kunneg gera ef PU vill retlatr vera. It would seem that, for the kings of the Old

Lat eigi t.rel~ pik fagrar konur, port pu sjair at veizlum, sva at pat standi per fyrir svefni eda pu fair af pvf hugarekka"

The two alterations taken together, however, suggest that the Old Norse translator's habits of mind were more overtly misogynous than those of W' I '. fi 11

. a ter, a suggestion which would It we

with the possibil"t h f h

. 1 Y t at Alexallder.\· saga was the work 0 t e

cehbate Brandr J' . h

. onsson, who, as bishop of Bolar, forbade t e

marnage of anyone who took holy orders (Einar 01. Sveinsson

1953, 155) At th . .

. e same time, the alterations imply that sex IS

to be equated excl . I . hi h

. USlve y with heterosexual intercourse, w IC

accords with the f. t th bi t

ac at whereas Walter was prepared to m

at Alexander's h . . (AI

II 436 omosexual relatIOnship with HephaestIOn S

h· -38) and perhaps with Bagoas (Als VIII 6-7) the hints

ave bee r . . ,

n e Immated from the saga (AS 343-6 and 1166-8).

For the general h st

. sc erne of Alexander's career the mo

Important statement' thi r

. in IS passage concerning personal tempe -

ance IS the maxi . h . . (AS

713-14. Al m wit which Aristotle closes the subject

I ,s 1.173-74): Vel seylldu peir fostr son lostaseme stilla- er aug on om oc heims·. h Id-

. h' ins faumalagl styra. This reference to 0

mg t e reins of th I' . .

b . e wor d IS the first intimation that Alexander IS

emg groomed not I .

Here the hra ' mer~ y for empire but for universal empIre.

I 174) P se. the reins of the world' (habenae mundi - Als in th must logICally mean 'the reins of the whole world', but

e Context of the rh t . . this

e oncal mode of expression used III

37 See also Sigrdrfjo il

rna stanza 28, in Edda (1983, 195).

130

DAVID ASHURST

Norse world in the thirteenth century, to be erudite has taken on t~e hues of moral obligation, something that Walter of Chatillon did not think to say in twelfth-century France.

In Walter's poem, Aristotle's injunction to follow the proper forms in conducting a trial is extremely compressed and vague (~ls I. 180): ciuiliter argue sontes, 'Convict the guilty in a civilized way' (Prit.). The Old Norse translator chooses to amplify this in a manner that emphasises the need for careful examination of evidence even when guilt is presumed, and the need ~o observe due legal procedure in both passing and executing Judgement (AS 720-22): Seera manna mal sealltu proba sannliga. d¢n:a reynda lute lauglega. Refsa beim er sekir ro retliga. Here ?e IS undoubtedly thinking in terms of the assumptions underly~ng the forensic process used before the mid-thirteenth century In Norway but not established in Iceland until after Magnus Hakonarson's legal reforms, according to which assumptions the re~u1t of guilt is 'punishment' rather than 'vengeance', and the guilty man is 'the criminal' rather than 'the enemy' (SteblinKa~ens~y 1973, 105). The opposite kind of thinking seems to be In eVIdence only one page later in the saga, however, when the author supplements the material of the Alexandreis by adding an account of how Alexander reacts when a certain Pausonfas murders King Philippus in the hope of being able to sleep with Queen Olimpias (AS 812-14):

En honom (i.e. Pausonfas) vard eigi at pvi kaupi pviat Alexande- let eigi long [rest afodor hefndum. Oc faui'lorbana smom valOi hann dauOdaga haooligan oc bo makligan.

Here the emph . . nce

asis IS very definitely on personal vengea

rather than th I' I . . (ce'

e re ative y Impersonal process of state JUs 1 ,

an~ the author clearly approves of Alexander's swift but fitting act~on .despite Aristotle's words about the due process of laW, which Include th t . rried

e s atement that punishment must not be ca

out .be~ore the judge's anger has abated (AS 722-23; Als I.18!):

refsmgma sealltu eigi fy« lata fram koma. helldr en af per gengr

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

131

reioen. It is difficult to imagine that Alexander's anger could have passed off before he took vengeance for the killing of his father, since we are told hat he would brook no long delay; and yet the author approves. We must conclude, therefore, that for the Old Norse translator there were situations, such as one necessitating father-vengeance, in which it was ethical to set Aristotle's teaching aside. This is a point that must be remembered when considering Alexander's summary execution of several courtiers and associates later in the narrative - but since these killings are explicitly related to his supposed corruption by wealth and luxury, the discussion of the issues that they raise will be deferred to section 5.4.2.

3.2.10 Aristotle's Final Word. In section 3.1.2 it was pointed out that Aristotle prefaces his speech with the assertion that what he is about to say will teach the young Alexander how to become what he longs to be, namely a victorious enemy of the Persians. HaVing thus announced his objective and given the necessary counsel, he rounds off the speech with a promise that outlines the inevitable result of fulfilling the advice. In this final moment it introduces a new perspective centred on the fame that, as we saw in chapter 2, plays such an important role in Alexander's career (AS 724-26; Als 1.182-83): ef bu Alexander lifir sva sem Aristotiles hefir kent per. ba man pitt nafn vppi me/ian heimrenn stendr.

This is the last word of Aristotle's to be reported in the narrative, and as such it merits careful consideration. I shall draw attention to three matters that arise from it.

First, the form of words 'if you live as Aristotle has taught you're-emphasises the ethical nature of the counsel that has been given. Clearly some of the individual pieces of advice, such as the instruction to move camp often, are tactical rather than ethi~al, whilst the majority of the maxims are just as clearly ethical III their primary nature; but Aristotle's last words indicate that his counsel is intended as a ground plan for living, and it is therefore ethical as a whole rather than merely in parts.

Secondly, the promise of eternal fame should not be separated from the ethical advice which Aristotle gives, for it belongs inte-

132

DAVID ASHURST

grally to the ground plan: hegemony is the objective, the counsel provides the means, and fame is the product. Such is the nature of Aristotle's ethics as presented in the saga and its source. From first to last it is the ethic of empire, the morality of power and prestige.

Finally we must exercise a little care in considering the implications of the fact that Alexander did in reality achieve the fame that he is offered in the speech. Aristotle's logic is as follows: 'If you do as I say, you will achieve lasting fame.' As medieval logicians well knew, it does not follow from this that bec~use Alexander achieved lasting fame he must therefore have fulfilled all of his master's injunctions. I have argued above that he ~oes, in fact, adhere to very many of the individual pieces of advice, and at the same time I have indicated that there are several areas of doubt about his conduct, which are to be discussed later. Aristotle's assertion about fame cannot shed light on these areas of doubt; nevertheless the fact that Alexander achieved f~me, and also gained the prime objective of hegemony, remains hIg~ly significant because these things belong integrally to the ethical system. In short, it is a strictly ethical statement to say that although Alexander may not have maintained his chastity, for example, he did achieve hegemony and fame.

3.3 The Effects oj Aristotle's Advice

3.3.1 _Int.roductory. Following the close of Aristotle's speech there IS, In the Alexandreis (I.l84-202) a transition passage bridging the years between this childhoodlesson and the start of Alexander's career proper at his coronation. The corresponding passage in Alexanders saga (726_827) well illustrates, in its method of ~daptation, the Old Norse translator's different approach ~o narratIve structure, his clear-headedness and skill in pursuing hIS ~wn objectives, and the care with which he has studied his material: but more im rt c .. . h c. t that

. '. po ant lor the present dISCUSSIon IS t e lac

It raIses some issues concerning each writer's moral judgements

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

133

on Alexander and his career of conquest. It is to these issues that I now tum.

3.3.2 The Immediate Effects in the Alexandreis. In the Latin text, the lines that immediately follow the close of Aristotle's speech give heavy emphasis to the pedagogical skill and importance of the master's words, and to the assiduity with which Alexander notes them (Als 1.184-88):

Talibus informans monitor uirtutis alumpnum Imbuit irriguam fecundis imbribus aurem

Et thalamo cordis mores impingit honestos. IIle libens sacris bibulas accommodat aures Vocibus, extremae commendans singula cellae.

With such fruitful showers did the teacher of virtue, shaping his pupil, moisten his receptive ear and implant honourable ways in the inner chamber of his heart. He, in turn, readily drank in the holy words, commending each point to the inmost recess of memory. (Prit.)

They are followed by an account of the words' efficacy in begetting a properly warlike attitude in the king-to-be (Als 1.189-91):

Mens igitur laudum stimulis sibi credula feruet. Germinat intus amor belli regnique libido.

lam timor omnis abest, iam spes preiudicat annis

Thus his mind, stimulated by praise, glows self-confidently, and love of war and desire for kingship germinate within. Now every fear is gone, now expectation outstrips his years. (prit.)

As a result, Alexander imagines himself as a universal lord (Ats I.l93): lam regnal, iam seruit ei quadrangulus orbis, 'Now he reigns, now the four-cornered globe serves him.' In this paradOxical image of a globe with comers, the anguli represent the four points of the compass, the reference serving to adumbrate the universality of Alexander's intended rule: it is the first com-

134

DAVID ASHURST

pletely explicit indication that Alexander, even at the age of twelve, is minded to conquer not just the Persian Empire but the whole world; and thus it marks the true beginning of his career. Concerning the ethical implications of the statement, the ~ost important thing for the reader to grasp is that Alexander's mtentlOns stem as a natural consequence from the fearlessness and bel~icosity that have been approved in the preceding lines, and which are themselves the direct consequence of Aristotle's words. As mentioned in 3.2.8, Aristotle made what may be construed as an allusion to the theme of world empire in the closing passage of his speech, where he refers to the reins of the world; bu~ even if the philosopher did not actually plant the idea of umversal conquest in Alexander's head by hinting that the boy would one day hold these reins, he has certainly worked him into t~e frame of mind in which he can imagine this possibility for hImself. In this sense, at least, it is Aristotle who is the instigator of all the conquests that follow.

3.3.3 The Immediate Effects in the Saga. The Old Norse trans.lator begins his adaptation of this passage by greatly condensm~ Walter's remarks on the efficacy of Aristotle's lesson, re~ovmg Walter's elaborate imagery and implying rather than statmg the I ,. di 's

esson S Importance by directing the au lence

~ttentio~ to the matter of how conscientiously Alexander takes Its detail to heart (Als 726_82): Pvilik rao kenndi Aristotiles Alexandro sem nu er sagt, oc aull varoveitte hann pau virkuliga ser ib . H d '

amor nos~e. ~ then. p~oceeds to replace the Latin Ale~an e~ ~

belli regmque lzbulo, 'love of war and desire for kmgshlP (Als 1.190), with a standard Old Norse idiom splendidly vigorous and concrete, and he leaves it to be inferred that the sentence follows logic II f . . I' ing

. a y rom the preceding one about interna IS

Anstotle's advi (AS 82-3 " . s an

. '. ce ): Nv gtrnr; hann engts annar .

ryoia ser til rikis mea odde oc eggio. In continuation, however,

he emphasises the callowness of the boy's aggressive thoughts by adding a comment that has no correlative in the poem (Als 84-5). oc J, t . h A viO

. pa gertr ann ser pegar thvg at ecke vetta mynue

honom rond reisa.

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

135

Following on from this example of childish impracticality, the passage proceeds with a statement that accords with the source text, a little uncomfortably, in its reiteration of the word 'now' but introduces a note of censure that is quite absent, or at least not explicit, in the Latin (AS 85-6; Als 1.193): sva geisar nu oc hatt hans ofse. at hann pycki: nu aullum heiminom styra. The word ofsi here needs to be translated 'insolence' as part of the standard phrase (hans) ofsi geisar hdtt ('his insolence runs high', CV, under geisa) and not as the 'tyranny' of which, for example, the power-hungry monarch, Haraldr harfagri, is accused in Egils saga.38 In consequence, and in view of the preceeding example of callowness, this criticism of Alexander, such as it is, should be seen as directed against the untried boy's presumptuous imagination rather than against his subsequent career of world conquest. Nevertheless this somewhat negative judgement of young Alexander's daydream is at odds with Walter's treatment of the subject which, as argued above, presents the boy's thoughts as stemming healthily from the positive influence of Aristotle's speech.

3.3.4 The Continuation of the Influence, According to Walter. After Walter has made the theme of world conquest explicit with such approval, his next sentence takes us abruptly to the end of Alexander's childhood and underlines his citizenly sense of duty on entering military service (Als 1.194-96):

Ergo ubi que ferulae pueros emancipat etas Aduenit, Macedo ciuiliter induit arrna

Non sibi sed patriae.

And so, when that age had come which liberates boys from the rod, the Macedonian, as a citizen should, donned arms, not for his own sake but for his country. (prit.)

38 Egils saga Skalla-Grimssonar (1933, 8): Solvi klofi tells King Amvior that Haraldr will attack him pd er hann hefir alia menn prcelkat ok djJjdt, sem hann vill, d Noromceri ok i Raumsdal, and he offers Arnvior military assistance mati bessum of sa ok ojafnaoi.

136

DAVID ASHURST

This stressing of the young man's selfless motivation at this stage is again entirely positive in its overt sense but it does introduce, by implication, a hint of doubt concerning what is to follow in the narrative, where Alexander appears to be so strong-

I' .

. y motIvated by the desire for personal fame, as discussed above

In chapter 2. Both these things, the overt congratulation and the s.hadow of implied criticism, are developed in the subsequent lines (Als I.196-99). The glorious aspirations and vast potential of the new recruit are emphasised, for he is 'a novice indeed but a giant at heart, and a veteran soldier in his soul' (Tyro quidem sed corde gygas, sed pectore miles I Emeritus _ Als I.197-98); but a minatory note is also sounded, quiet but unmistakable to t~ose well acquainted with the story of Troy, for Alexander is likened to Achilles' brutal son (Als I. 198-99):

tunc indomitum tunc tanta uideres

Velie Neoptolemum que uix expleret Achilles.

Y~u .could then, at that moment, sec the wild Ncoptolemus wIshmg for the great things that Achilles could hardly accomplish.

People who knew the Aeneid would doubtless remember that t~e young Neoptolemus, in grim wrath, committed double sacnlege by first slaying the son of Priam before Priam's eyes and then. putting to the sword the Trojan king himself, both in the preCIncts of an altar (Virgil 1935, Aeneid II.526-58). Moments after his s 's d h . ds

on s eat and seconds before his own, Priam rernrn

N~optolemus that Achilles would never have committed such a cnme, and that he had shown mercy on Priam by giving back the body of Hector (Aeneid II.540-43). These lines, if they are recalled, surely form an ironic foil to Walter's image of Neo.p:olemus wishing to outdo his father. In addition, people familiar with the supposed work of Dares Phrygius, of which an Old Norse version is extant in Tr6jumanna saga, would know that Neoptolemus not only slew Priam at the altar of Jupiter, Of

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

137

of Parr in the Old Norse account, but also cold-bloodedly cut the throat of Priam's daughter Polyxena at the tomb of Achilles (Dares Phrygius 1873, 49 and 51; Tr6jumanna saga 1963, 209 and 212; Tr6jumanna saga 1981,75 and 79).39 Although the primary function of Walter's reference to 'wild Neoptolemus', then, is to convey an impression of Alexander's eagerness and ability to follow the example of Achilles in a gloriously heroic career, the allusion is bound also to suggest the possibility that he could become a merciless and impious killer breaking the most sacred laws ofmen.

It is typical enough of Walter, who frequently risks incoherence by seeing matters from more than one moral standpoint in rapid succession, that he should hint at criticisms of Alexander immediately after having made such a positive presentation of the effects of Aristotle's advice. Accordingly he follows these hints, such as they are, with a statement which is rather more definite in calling into question the moral validity of Alexander's imagined campaign of world conquest, now beginning to be prepared for in actuality (Als I.200-02)

Non solum in Persas, quos contra iusta querelae Causa sibi fuerat, parat insanire, sed ipsum

Et tatum, si fata sinant, coniurat in orbem.

Not only against the Persians, with whom he had a just cause for quarrel, does he prepare to rage, but he conspires against the Whole world itself, if the fates will but allow. (Prit.)

By the rules of strict logic it does not follow that because Alexander is said to have had a just reason for fighting the Persians his plans to attack other peoples must necessarily have been unjust; but in the looser reasoning of ordinary speech such an inference is frequently drawn and is often regarded as accept-

-- 39

The latter action is self-evidently shocking, but it may be noted that the socalled 'Dares Phrygius version' of the saga, which has been transmitted only through late paper copies, adds the following note of explicit condemnation (Tr6jumanna saga 1981, 79): og var pad verk allmiog lastad, af ollum velburdugum monnum.

138

DAVID ASHURST

able .. 'Yalter's formulation of the sentence therefore prompts the SUsplcI~n that Alexander may have been embarking on what was ultImately to become an unjust war, but it does not logically

say so Th . . . .

. e SUSpIcIon, however, IS deepened in the latter part

of the sentence, where the act of planning it is expressed using

the morally ambo b' .

. . Iguous ver conjuro, LS says of this word that

It IS occasionally u d . h . .

, se WIt out negatIve connotations to mean

to swear together' or 'to band together by an oath', but that it

occurs far more frequently in 'a bad sense' with the meaning 'to Dhorm a con~piracy' or more simply 'to con~pire'. The likelihood,

t erefore IS that W It . h .

, a er IS ere expressmg moral doubt about

Alexander's plan, although with a notable tentativeness after so much positive prese t ti f . . . .

. n a Ion 0 It. QUIte soon in the narrative, as It

turns out, this doubt is quashed (discussed in 4.4 below)' but it is

part of Walter's moral scheme that such doubts should be aired.

3.3.5 The Contl'n ti f . t

th Sua Ion 0 the Influence Accordmg 0

e aga P . ,

t h . assmg on from the time of Alexander's childhood

Owen he becomes h

Ur I ' . a man, t e Old Norse translator preserves

vva ter s Image of lib .

. I eration from the rod (Als I 194) but then

Interrupts line I.195 after its first three syllable~ and' inserts a passage of some

. seventy words (Als 86-14) before rejoining the

same line where it h d b

end' a een left. This passage outlines the leg-

at t~ry :lr~Umstances surrounding the death of King Philippus

e .an s of Pausonfas and mentions Alexander's venge-

ance, Usmg basic . d h

adapt d h 1 eas t at come from the Alexander Romance

e rat er freely and k hi . 60)

also in JJ 38 s etc ily: m Leo of Naples (1913, '

he is called h~ 12 ! 60, and J3 24, Alexander kills Pausanias, as contrives tIre, in ba~tle; and in Julius Valerius (I 993, I.24) he but in Al 0 et the dymg Philip strike the death-blow himself;

exanders sag th 'f I

swiftness w'th h' a e emphasis is placed on the dut! U

of its n t I b ':' ich vengeance is exacted without the details

a ure emg i '

in relation t A' g ven. The moral issues of this vengeance

o nstotle's h h d in

3.2.9. speec ave already been discusse I

Reconnecting with hi .

makes th ~ II . 1 IS major source, the Old Norse translator

e 10 OWmg stat .' in

ements about Alexander's policies I

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

139

the period after the accession (AS 815-19; Als I.195-96 quoted in 3.3.4):

pegar eptir frafall faudor sins tecr Alexander til landstiomar, oc pui nest byr hann sec til hernadar, eigi at eins ser til fregoar oc framkvomdar, helldr oc til frelsis ollu fostrlande sino pvi er aor la undir miklo apianar oke.

Here it can be seen that the translator has taken the trouble to emphasise again the hero's ethical motivation for war, removing the strict dichotomy of the phrase non sibi sed patriae, 'not for himself but for the fatherland' (Als I.196) by substituting a more reasonable 'not only ... but also ... ' construction, and by expanding patriae to include a reminder of that country's need of freedom from oppression. Thus he avoids the hint of moral criticism implied at this point in the epic. Moving on, he suppresses any further hint in the lines that follow, the reference to Neoptolemus (Als I.199) being excised so that Alexander's rivalry with Achilles becomes entirely positive. And whereas Walter (Als I. 196-98) carefully limits himself to classical embo~iments of steadfastness, namely the citizen and the veteran soldier, the translator boldly grasps what was in thirteenth-century Norway and Iceland the most excitingly modem symbol of excellence - chivalry (AS 819-24):

Alexander var nu nydubbaor til riddera s:,a n:ikill ihiartano sem rise. en ibriostino sem gamall oc vitr ndden. par Il_1atte pa

'. . h ;'\an at hann villde pa

sia nyian oc ungan nddera sua stor ugao .

. . . I .;'\ koma sa enn mesti

giarna steaa vmna. en Achilles matte a eio .

kappi er var f Troiomanna sogo.

In connection with this passage it may be noted that Magnus

H ik . h d y of his coronatIOn a onarson was dubbed a knight on tea

. f . k' d i Norway and

In 1261 - probably the first ceremony 0 Its III III . '

I . . f M nus Accordlllg to

c early a matter of great satisfaction or ag . . .

u, . M' a ScottIsh kmght llakonar saga which was wntten for agnus, f

b' . t the splendour 0

y the name of Missell expressed surpnse a

i

I

\

140

DAVID ASHURST

what he saw, because he had understood that dubbing was not customary in Norway (Sturla P6roarson 1887,319):

Pat ver mer sagt, at her veri ekki riddarar dubbaoir f pessu landi; en ek sa ongvan riddara jafn-tfguliga dubbaoan, par sem firnm inir agretuztu hofOingjar f pessu landi leggja urn hann vfgslusveroit.

Irrespective of whether the reference to being dubbed a knight was written into the Alexander translation with Magnus in mind, the passage in Hdkonar saga stands as evidence that early audiences of Alexanders saga would have made a very positive response to this theme.

The saga writer's Whole treatment of Alexander's accession, in fact, has been as positive as could conceivably be, with regard to a moral assessment of the hero. Faced at last with WaIter's equivocally critical summing up (Als 1.200-02) in which it is said that Alexander 'conspires' against the whole world, the Old Norse translator continues on his own course. He avoids the morally ambiguous word Con jurat, and he implies that Alexander could have just causes for war against the rest of the world even if the most just causes were against Persia (AS 824-27):

.. . 'hans

oc eIgI at ems retlar hann at heria a Dariuv konung OC a

riki. pott par vere sakar brynastar. helldr eetlar hann ef orIog banna eigi. at leggia undir sec alIa heirnsbygoina.

o hi ds

ntIs sanguine note of approval the Old Norse translator en

what has really been a prelude to the story proper. Where~:

Walter had commended the immediate effects of Aristotle

dvi b er

a VIce ur then cast a shadow of moral doubt, temporarily, ov

Alexander's plan for world conquest, the translator has shown some disapproval of the twelve-year old prince's childish presumption in imagining himself as lord of the earth, but then he has brought forward an adult Alexander proven in fathervengeance and clothed in the glamour of knighthood; he ~as declared him to be stouthearted beyond human kind and wily

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

141

beyond his years; and finally he has set him on th~ course of war, the rightfulness of which will not be exhausted WIth the conq~est of Persia alone. In doing so the translator has put himself ~ h~tle at odds with the ethical nuances of his source but has kept III line with his own earlier judgement (see 2.2.1 and 3.1.1 above) that Alexander's conduct truly revealed him to be a king's son.

3.4 Conclusions

Although Aristotle's advice in the early part of the narrative is

. h that some com-

not really programmatic for the story III t e way .

. b· it i . nificant because It

mentators have presented It as emg, 1 IS SIg

raises many ethical issues that will figure in later parts of the

. . . b it sets up the idea of

work, and It IS even more Important ecause I

an ethical war of conquest that could extend to universal hegemony, for Aristotle's statement that those who hold the reins of the world should be able to curb their desires not only gives the first hint in the saga that the narrative will be about world c?n~uest but also confirms that the desire to rule the world is not III .. tself

. h it orruse of

immoderate (3.2.8). The close of the speech, WIt I S pr

f . . di to the precepts that

arne as the end product of living accor ing

. h th dvice as a whole

have Just been taught demonstrates t at e a

, . f . the moral-

embodies what I have called 'the ethic 0 empire, .

. Thi thi of empire must

tty of power and prestige' (3.2.10). IS e IC . ..

b . . I . lity of Danus WIth Its

e in opposition to the impena immora 1 , . h

. . . f forei n laws SIllce t e

unreasonable taxes and its imposinon 0 torerg ,

dvi . .. b Alexander's rage

a VIce IS prompted III the first place y young

. d i h the specific purpose

agamst Persian oppression (3.1.1), an It as .

f . tory agaIllst the

of teaching the boy how to pursue a career 0 VIC .

oppressor (3.1.2). It is therefore oppression, rather tha? empire o~ Conquest which is seen as unethical; and hence there IS no mohra

, th Persian yoke as

reason why the conquests should cease once e

been thrown off f

In accordan~e with this Aristotle's speech has the effect 0

. '1··n which he can

WOrklllg Alexander into a state of bel rgerence I .

explicitly imagine himself as ruler of the world (3.3.2) - so III

142

DAVID ASHURST

a sense it is Aristotle who is the instigator of all the conquests that follow. The saga writer introduces a note of criticism of the ~oy's presumption in making this flight of fancy (3.3.3); but in the subsequent passage that describes Alexander as a young man, where Walter seems to air some doubts about the ethical vali?ity of the plan for world conquest, the Old Norse translator ~volds any such implications and presents an entirely positive Image of a young knight about to embark on an adventure that will rightfully extend beyond the Persian Empire (3.3.5).

. . The Old Norse translator's approval of Alexander's precIpitate vengeance for his father which conflicts with Aristotle's ~nsistence that a guilty man should not be punished before the Ju~ge has ceased to be angry, indicates that some details of the philosopher's moral instructions may be set aside (3.2.9); on the whole, however, the episodes of the narrative show Alexander complying with his master's dicta throughout his career, apart fron: the matters to be raised in chapter 5 of this study. In pa~lcular Alexander always fulfils Aristotle's military advice, W?I~h concentrates on the virtues of courage, loyalty and the wIllmgness to kill without compunction when the time for battle has. a~ived; and similarly the rhetoric with which he time and again Illcites his troops to acts of violence in war, though odious to many people now, is in full accord with the instructions of his tea.cher (3.2.6). In the saga (but possibly not in the Alexandreis),

Anstotle's w d .

or s concernlllg the need of a leader to be gener-

ous towards his h' I'

men must be taken seriously as fully et Ica,

even though Al der ' c the

. . exan er s largesse causes some problems lor

army It IS fully in line with Aristotle's precepts which Alexander

obeys all the '. ' t

more readily smce he himself prefers fame 0

wealth (3.2.7) At . . . . . f r-

. every stage of his military campaignuis- u

thermore Alexa der i . . to

' n er IS complIant with his master's injunctiOn

spare the humbl ( . . . s

. . . e as III the cases of Athens Uxia and the CltJe

of Cilicla) hi '. '. . . h

, IS actIOns being the result of a policy decision whic

has. gre.at practical benefits for his programme of conquest but which IS ethical . . 3 2 3) III nature rather than merely strategic ( . . .

On the other hand he i . . . 's di tum

e IS vrgorous m applying Anstotle s IC

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

143

about crushing the proud, even to the extent of wreaking mass destruction on the populations that haughtily defy him, as at Thebes where his actions are specifically commended by the Old Norse translator; in line with biblical precedents for such acts, however, the annihilation of a city is ethically motivated in every case by some other matter besides the need to punish pure defiance (3.2.4). In addition the same dictum is repeatedly applied to haughty individuals, in which context it provides some justification for the otherwise questionable treatment of Philotas (3.2.2) . It should also be noted that there is no evidence in the narrative to suggest that Alexander ever transgresses Aristotle's prohibition against allowing the love of individuals or their wealth to deflect him from giving true judgement; nor is avarice given room to flourish in his court, although it affects the army for a while before steps are taken to eradicate it (3.2.2).

Finally, Aristotle's rule against promoting unworthy lowbom men, which is prioritised in the opening section of the counsel, deserves special mention because it exemplifies the way in which the topics introduced in the speech can have significant and unexpected developments later in the narrative. It is Darius who breaks this rule by giving power to Bessus, whereas Alexander shows nothing but indignation and contempt for this 'wicked slave' Who betrays his lord (3.2.1). The insistence on punishment for Bessus carries Alexander and his army into a new phase of Conquest at a point when the Macedonians are otherwise ready to ~o home, and thus this apparently isolated dictum of Aristotle's IS made to playa crucial role in the moral scheme of the narrative and in the means by which Alexander becomes sole ruler of the World.

CHAPTER 4

The Mandate for Empire

4.1 A Negative View of Alexander's Career

Since Alexanders saga remains a little-known work, it is unfortunate that people in the English-speaking world are likely to be aware of its substance, if at all, chiefly through the discussion of

it contained in Lars Lonnroth's book on Njdls saga. .

According to Lonnroth (1976, 159), Alexanders saga qUIte possibly provides the overall framework for the story of Gunnarr Hamundarson, for the basic pattern of the two narratives is the same:

A d . e of

young hero gains honor as long as he follows the a VIC

his Wise Counselor (Njall, Aristotle), but is beset by mis~ortune when he forgets the advice in his desire for the allunng beauties of this world.

At a crucial and defining moment in the career of both Gunnarr and Alexander, alluring beauty comes in the fo~ of rural scenery by which both heroes are seduced and fall Illto error. Both men 'seem motivated by excessive pride and by a foolish desire for what they should not desire. Both of them trust their Own fortune too much for their own good' (Lannroth 1976, 154). Both sagas, it is argued, are the product, to a gre~ter o~. lesser extent, of that ecclesiastically trained sensibility Whl~~ Lonnroth calls the 'clerical mind' and it is in the light of thi that we should interpret the episodes in which the heroes gaze upon attractive farmlands:

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

145

To a clerical mind in the Middle Ages, the beautiful landscapes seen by Gunnarr and Alexander must have represented a dangerous worldly temptation, snares of the devil. Suc~ an int:rpretation is clearly intended in Alexanders saga, and It also fits well in Njdla (Lonnroth 1976, 154).

Peter Foote, reviewing Lonnroth's book, noted that in emphasising the clerical stamp of Njdls saga Lonnroth played do~n considerations such as the words that Gunnarr utters after hIS death When he appears to Skarphedinn Njalsson and .HQgni Gunnarsson in which he declared that he would rather die than yield, and which suggest obedience to the dictates of simple honour in traditional terms rather than the overweening arrogance attributed to Alexander (Foote 1979, 57). There is room to doubt, Foote continued, whether the author of Njdls saga actually regarded Gunnarr as the victim of his own arrogant folly rather than as a non-pareil the victim of mankind's vicious pettiness.

, . '1 I

Preben Meulengracht Serensen (1993, 306-08) has slm~ a: y

criticised the attempt to align Gunnarr with specifically Christian clerical values drawn from Alexanders saga, on the grounds that Njdls saga itself presents Gunnarr 's dilemma in terms of honour, and of war versus peace. My purpose in this chapt~r, by ~ontrast, is to show that Lonnroth's interpretation of the episode III Alexanders saga is in any case quite wrong, and incidentally that.the . .. t ds against Internal evidence of Alexanders saga, such as It IS, S an

the likelihood of a direct and relevant literary borrowing. The landscape seen by the Macedonian king certainly does ha~e a

Ch" . " . c moved as possible nstJan slgmflcance, but one that IS as rar re

from that of a dangerous worldly temptation.

4.2 Evidence of Literary Borrowing from Alexanders

saga to Njals saga

4.2.1 The Occurrence of the Phrase 'Pale Cornfields'. The Possible point of contact between Alexander and Gunnarr, noted by Einar 61. Sveinsson in his edition of Brennu-Njdls saga (19~4, xx .). . d I arrived in ASIa,

XVI , IS III the passage where Alexan er, new y

146

DAVID ASHURST

climbs a hill from which he sees the continent's pale cornfields and the other features of its rich and beautiful land (AS 1426_151; Als 1.436-41):

par matte hann alIa vega sia fra ser fagra vollo bleika akra stora ~coga blorngao., vingaroa stercar borgir. ok er konungr ser yfir pessa fegro alIa. ba melir hann sua til villdar lias sins. Petta riki er nu lit ec yfir retia ec mer sialfum. En Gricland fauoor leifr· ·1 ·1

v mma VI ec nu gefa ydr vpp segir hann II haufOengianna.

The phrase 'pale c f ld ' .... k

om Ie s, as the normnatrve bleikir a rar,

also occurs in N· il. id

'ja s saga at the moment when Gunnarr dec I es

not to go into exile but to turn back and face death, citing the

beauty of the I . . .

N· , s ope near hIS home as hIS reason for this (Brennu-

'jals saga 1954, 182):

FQ~r. er hUoin, sva at mer hefir hon aldri jafnfQgr synzk,

bleIkIr akrar k I . , k f

h. 0 s cgrn tun, ok mun ek rlOa heim aptr 0 ara

vergi,

The OCCurren . b Id '

hich : ce In oth texts of the phrase 'pale cornfie s ,

w ich IS not att t d . h t

es e anywhere else in saga literature, IS W a

prompts specul ti h .

ifi . a Ion t at there might have been a direct and srg-

ru Icant lIterary b .. k

. orroWIng Into Njdls saga from the older wor ,

partIcularly since ..

apprecIatIve references to natural beauty, common enough in th . I

of th fam: e romance genre, do not appear to be typlca

add·t~ amlly sagas, the group to which Njdls saga belongs. In

I Ion Gunnarr' I.t

d .' s unexpected words have an enigmatic qua I Y

emandlllg expl . d.

anatlOn and suggesting that the original au 1- ences responded t h d e

who hot em on the basis of some ready knowle g

IC We now lack.

The sharing of I s

th t h a rare Y recorded phrase by no means prove a t ere Was a di d

h b .. Irect borrowing, or that the borrowing nee

ave een sIgn fi . .

therw: I ream If there was any Lonnroth does not claIm

o erwis, (1976, 154, note 69): .

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

147

It is [ ... J conceivable, after all, that the Icelandic translator took the phrase 'bleikir akrar' from his native 'language of tradition', perhaps even from an oral tale about Gunnarr's return to Hlfoarendi. But the absence of such descriptive phrases in earlier sagas speaks against this interpretation.

It appears more likely, he continues in the same note, that the translator of Alexanders saga invented the phrase himself in a successful attempt to make the poetic language of the Latin original more succinct and effective.

The likelihood that the phrase was merely standard, however, is greatly increased by analysis of the compositional technique of Alexanders saga as compared with the Alexandreis. As is to be expected, the translator very regularly deviates from the Latin wording if there is a native idiom to hand. This is his stock-intrade, and examples of it are legion: they permeate the linguistic texture of Alexanders saga, whether as substitutions or as outright additions, as single words, short phrases or entire sayings. Full analysis of these deviations from the source - their types, functions and consistent application - is beyond the scope of this book; but here a few illustrations will indicate their range.

4.2.2 The Range of Ready-to-Hand Substitutions. In the first place and readiest to hand are turns of phrase such as the fair-false dichotomy found in Havamal (1986, stanza 45) as well as many other works. It is utilised when Proditio speaks of the general who is about to murder the king (AS 14811-14):

minn fostrson er Antipater heitir einn hofoengi mer Alexandri sa er pat scaplyndi hefir er mer licar. kann lata fagrt poat hann hygge flatt <etlar afund hans.

~is neatly replaces, with economy quite typical of the translatIon, the following sentence in the Latin source (Als X.150-53):

Nam meus Antipater, Macedum prefectus, ab ipsis Cunarum lacrimis pretendere doctus amorem

Voce sed occultis odium celare medullis,

Ad regem ire parat.

148

DAVID ASHURST

For Antipater, Governor of Macedonia and my own favourite, who from the very tears of the cradle has shown skill in feigning love in speech whilst concealing hatred in the recesses of his heart, is even now preparing to come to the king. (Prit.)

At the other extreme, the readiness to employ native idioms occasionally results in the addition of material not found in the Latin. The Scythian emissary's speech, for example, contains a ~ist of proverbs on the mutability of fortune which, in the saga, mcludes the following remark: optlega velltir litil pula miclo =: (AS 12628). This saying, which also occurs in almost identical form in Sturlunga saga (1946, I 321), has no correlative in the epic (see Als VII1.391-403).

Examining those deviations from the Latin text that involve su~st~tutions or additions provides a good way, in fact, of pinpomtmg sayings likely to have been current at the time but which are not attested elsewhere. An example of this can be found in Aristotle's warning against the promotion of low-class servants, which was discussed above (3 2 1) and which certain-

I .. ,

y looks like an adage (AS 425): pat er oc oronom nest er veslo

batnar, There is no parallel to it in any of the four Latin glosses reproduced in Colker's edition of the Alexandreis (Als pp. 278, 307,360 and 496), and it deviates markedly from the poem (Als 1.89-91):

Sic partis opibus et honoris culmine seruus

In dominum surgens, truculentior aspide surda, Obturat precibus aures, mansuescere nescit.

;ven. s.o a servitor, gaining power and the height of hO~OU: nd nSI~g against his master more savagely than a deafvlpet' shu~s hIS ears to entreaties and knows not how to relen. (Pm.)

It is Possible, also, to detect Old Norse sayings behind sou:e smaller changes to the text, as in the substitution of konurnar In place of amor 'I "wh . .. . h danger-

ove w en Anstotle inveighs agamst t e .

ous pleasures of sex as menr] d i ti 3 2 8 the alteratIon

, one In sec Ion . . ,

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

149

possibly depending on a form of words evident in Yolsunga saga and Sigrdrifomdl.

4.2.3 Changes to the Passage Mentioning the Cornfields.

It is against the background of such deviations from the detail of its source that we must approach the passage in Alexanders saga where the Macedonian king surveys Asia from the hilltop. Here we find that the pale (ripe) cornfields do not correspond exactly to the (green) com of the poem (Als 1.436-40):

Hinc ubi uemantes Cereali gramine campos, Tot nemorum saltus, tot prata uirentibus herbis Lasciuire uidet tot cinctas menibus urbes,

Tot Bachi frutices, tot nuptas uitibus ulmos, 'lam satis est,' inquit.

When he saw from here the plains growing green with the Cerean herb (i.e. corn), so many forest pastures, so many meadows luxuriant with verdant grasses, so many cities girt with walls, so many grape vines and so many elms wedded to t~e vine, he shouted, 'It is now enough, my friends!' (Prit., modified as stated below)

Clearly this is a vernal scene, as is implied by the word uernantes (although Pritchard's translation actually renders this as 'blooming'), which is related to ver, 'spring', and to vernus, 'springlike', and comes from verno, which LS gives as 'to appear like spring, to flourish, be verdant'. There are also connotations of spring in the word uirentibus, from vireo, defined by LS as 'to be green' and 'to be fresh'.

Lannroth's suggestion (1976, 154) that the translator of Alexanders saga himself invented the phrase bleikir akrar to make WaIter's poetic language more succinct and effective is not c.Ompelling. Why should ripe corn be more succinct and effective than springing corn? Certainly the translator could have made up a phrase for the sake of fancy, but it is not clear why he should he have transmuted into harvest time what is a vernal scene emphasising the potential of Alexander's new land. In the absence of a clear aesthetic motive for this change, the stronger

150

DAVID ASHURST

possibility must be that the translator was merely following his Zequent practice of substituting, perhaps automatically, an Old

o or~e phrase that was common property and ready to hand, The likelihood that a substitution of this kind was made is greatly strengthened, furthermore, by the fact that the translator, who is normally subtle in perceiving the drift of his source and careful in following his ow lit bOO Id

o n I erary 0 jectives, has here made what cou

be a mIstakeo he h 0 0 0 0 d

o 0 as npe corn SIde by SIde with blossom-covere

vmeyards (b16 Jt 0 , h

mzaotr vingaroary, The last phrase shows that e

was, well aware of the spring-time setting of WaIter's scene, and yet pale cornfields' slipped into the text.

The chances are, therefore, that the expression was pre-exist-

ent and famil! h d

rar w en Alexanders saga was being composed an

that, consequentl it I 0

o , y, I wou d have been available to the wnter

of '!Jals saga independently of the translated work. This is an

entIrely plausible °bolo 0

o POSSI I rty SInce the phrase corresponds to an

easIly observed 10 fO h

h 0 0 rea ity: ields of grain do turn very pale w en

t e crop IS ripe Th 10 0 0 0 licit On

o e coup mg of Ideas furthermore IS Imp ICI I

a text whi h "

IC must have been widely known in the thirteenth cen-

tury, John 4 35 (BS °d

o 0 , trans, A V): Levate oculos vestros, et VI ete

restones qu 0 lb

' ta a ae sunt iam ad messem 'Lift up your eyes,

and look on th fO ld ' ,

He Ie s; for they are white already to harvest.

ere the Word alb 0 0 , I' r

us corresponds to bleikr: it signifies pa eor,

more commonly 'd do, ' '10 g

white' LS ,ea white as opposed to candidus, dazz ~n

th (, under albusy. We do not then have an expresSIOn at exactly II I ' " 56)

o 0 para e s pale cornfields' but as Foote (1979,

puts It, gIven th G ' 0

to '0 e ospel phrase it is hard to think that an aSSOCla-

Ion of white' a d 'h 0 0

4 2 4 n arvest fields" was a medieval ranty.

a do 0, The SUpposed Parallel between Gunnarr and Alexn er III Conn f '

for th k ec Ion With the Pale Cornfields, Let us suppoSoe, e sa e of argu did

inv t th ment, that the writer of Alexanders saga

en e term' 1 N° 'Is

o pa e cornfields' and that the author of ~a

saga took It as 10' hat

ld 0 a tterary loan, The phrase is a pretty one t

cou easily h boo

ave een borrowed for its own sake, and It by n means fol1ows th tOo 0 For

th boa Its Context was borrowed along WIth It.

e orrowmg to boo Ilels

e slgmficant there must be clear para

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

151

between the two contexts in which the phrase is used, It therefore matters a great deal, contrary to what Lonnroth (1976, 154) implies, that Alexander, who is young, vigorous and at the start of his career, claims the pale cornfields as part of his new realm, for the sake of which he gives away his own homeland, whereas Gunnarr, who is doom-laden near the end of his life, cannot relinquish the pale cornfields and his home meadow. Set forth in this way the situations correspond as opposites rather than parallels; but in reality all they have in common is that the two men, like any man in a position of ownership, see the pale cornfields as beautiful, as well as valuable, real estate.

Despite the above, Lonnroth (1976, 154) sees a parallel between the two episodes, on the basis that 'both their choices represent a clear violation of the advice given by their respective Wise Counselors (Aristotle and Njall) , .

The first objection to this statement must be that the pairing together of Aristotle and Njall in this way under the single appellation 'Wise Counselors' itself suggests a greater correspondence between the two figures than is actually the case. Whereas Njall fulfils a complex role as friend, adviser and prophet throughout Gunnarr's career, Aristotle appears only as a bit-player in Alexanders saga, and only in the first of its ten books: we catch a glimpse of him as chief of Alexander's scribes at the king's coronation (AS 918-20; Als I.222-25), and apart from this there is ~nl~ the one scene, discussed in the previous chapter, in which he

ehvers his counsel to the boy Alexander.

But if the two counsellors do not really correspond, in what parallel ways do Gunnarr and Alexander fail to heed the advice \~hich each was given? Lonnroth (1976, 154) gives the explanation, quoted in 4.1, that both heroes seem motivated by excessive pride and by a foolish desire for what they should not desire, and both of them trust their own fortune too much for their own good. In other Words, the question of parallels and borrowings comes down to the interpretation of the hilltop episode and its moral connotations in Alexanders saga. It is to this matter that I now tUrn.

152

DAVID ASHURST

4.3 The Episode on the Hilltop.

~.3.1 Claiming Asia While Giving Greece Away. There is

little need to spe I t b .'

cu a e a out what the beautiful landscape In

Alexanders saga might have represented to 'a clerical mind in ~he Middle Ages' as Lonnrorh does (1976 154) for the passage

Itself' d' '. "

m Icates what IS going on in the hero's thoughts.

The loveliness of Asia is presented in terms of the land's rich resources: in the Old Norse version even more than in the Latin, the usefulness and f bili f

. pro Ita I tty of the land are integral parts 0

Its aesthetic app I . h . . '

. ea - WIt emphasIS placed on ItS productive

cornfIelds great f d . hi h

' orests an blossom-covered vineyards, W rc

are to be guarded and enjoyed by strong cities. Alexander surveys all this beauty, claims everything for himself and offers to compensate his generals, for his confiscation of the riches they

would otherwis h . . . d '

e ave Won, by givrng them hIS own Ian s m

Gree~e (AS 1426_151, quoted above in 4.2.1).

HIS offer is no hetori d

empty r etoric, for Alexander proceeds to 0

exactly what he h id " E

as sal (AS 153-4 expanding Als 1.442), n

hann sciptir nu G 'cl. ii '

1-. rtc anc 1 mea beim af stormennino er honom

potto bess mac!' ti I h ' '

19S tr. n t e preceding two lines of the saga It IS

made clear that h ' b

f ' e IS a Ie to offer this astonishing gift because

~51~S confidence that the Asian kingdom will fall to him (AS jJ ki. Als 1.443-45 ): ok sua treystir hann nu sinni geju at honom yc lr sem beua liggi laust fyrir,

On the basis f h . .' ts

b . 0 t e same confIdence he immediately se

a out lookmg aft hi d The

L . . er IS new realm as a good king shoul .

atin text m fact k . n

h h ' . ' rna es this sense of responsibility the reaso

w y e claImed hi . it

everyt mg for himself in the first place, SIllce 1 remarks of the hI'

Woe epIsode (Als 1.445-46):

Lib sic a populantibus agros

I erat et pecorum raptus auertit ab hoste.

In this way he f d . d the

ree the fIelds from plunderers and save

enemy from cattle-rustling by his men. (Prit.)

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

153

The saga version somewhat blunts the logic here by suppressing the word sic, 'in this way', and consequently it leaves Alexander slightly more exposed to possible accusations of greed (AS 154-7):

hann bannaoe nu oc sinom monnum at taka par strandhoo, eoa gera annat uspaclect. iafnt sem hann retti sialfr hvetvctna pat er fyrir var.

The more generalised reference to public order, on the other hand, emphasises his serious kingly intent, which in both versions of the narrative leads to the peaceable surrender of several cities, as we saw in section 3.2.3.40

Examination of Walter's own sources confirms that the passage has been assembled carefully to create this dramatic moment in the Latin epic. There is no corresponding episode in Curt., and if there ever was then it would have been in the missing Book II, which had been lost long before Walter's time. The hilltop panorama, in fact, is Walter's free fantasy on the basis of miscellaneous classical motifs (cf. Colker's apparatus fontium for Als 1.436-40). Alexander's instruction to his men not to lay waste ~sia, however, comes from Justinus (1935, X1.6. 1); and the diviSIOn of Greece between the worthiest generals has been cuIled from Justinus X1.5.5, where it happens before the fleet leaves boroe, That would have been at least as rational a place for it, but Its transposition here, to the moment when Alexander sees Asia for the first time and claims it as his own, clearly makes the episode much more striking, which is always a prime consideration 0: Walter's. At the same time, and more important for the present dIscussion, the giving away of his patrimony absolves Alexander

-- 40

Alexander's banning of despoliation may usefully be compared and cont~asted with King Haraldr harfagri's actions when he kills P6r6lfr KveldUlfsson at Sandnes (Egils saga 1933,54), Haraldr forbids his men to plunder the farm, declaring all the property to be his own. Unlike Alexande: he does not compensate his forces for this confiscation of the booty; but a little later (p, 56) he secures the loyalty of Eyvindr lambi Karason by passing the property on to him along with the hand ofI>6r6lfr's widow, Sigrfor,

154

DAVID ASHURST

of unmitigated greed, underlines his confidence, and highlights the fact that there is good and sober statesmanship even in his apparent impetuosity. The last point is further emphasised by the ban on plundering.

The confidence underlying Alexander's actions in this epi· sode is what L6nnroth (1976, 154) construed as excessive pride, and also as a turning away from the lesson that Aristotle had taught in his role as the boy Alexander's schoolmaster: 'Here Alexander is about to forget his tutor's good advice and become far too ambitious'. In fact, however, the statement that Alexander trusts his luck so much that the conquest of Asia seems eas~ to achieve, far from suggesting a rejection of Aristotle's advice, merely reprises what the immediate effects of that advice had originally been, namely a daydream of universal lordship gained against negligible opposition (discussed in sections 3.3.2-3). Nor does the fact that Alexander must in reality seize his new realm by bloody conquest go against Aristotle's advice in any way: ~s

h· . Iy tlns

we ave seen, the phIlosopher made allowance for precise .'

at the point where he talked about razing to the ground the cItIes that will not surrender of their own accord (see 3.2.4). In fact,

d . li it urpose

as argue m section 3.1.2, the immediate and exp ICI p

of Aristotle's long speech was to inform and direct, and not at all to stifle, the twelve-year-old boy's eagerness to take up arn:s in vengeance against the Persians, whose territory Alexander IS now surveying from the hilltop.

4.3.2 The Urgent Desire for Vengeance. This eagerness to be about the work of vengeance for which merely defen~. '. t IS mg Greece against the Great King would not be sufficle~ , 17

stressed repeatedly in the early part of the narrative (AS 21 -3 , 325_411 and 815-19; Als 1.33-58,1.72-80 and 1.194-202; see 3.1.1

b ) . . state-

a ove . The portrayal of this urgent desire culminates in a

ment that Alexander never looked back when the time came for

h· . g on IS army to embark against Asia. Since this has a beann .

h Al for hIS

w at exander says on the hilltop and since Gunnarr, .

d I'd the SIg-

part, oes ook back When he is about to leave Icelan , '1

·f·· . detal.

m rcance of this statement will now be looked at in some

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

155

By the time the fleet sets out, Alexander's forces ar~ inspired by love of their of their leader and by the prospect of Improve~ status (AS 144-6; Als 1.368-69 ): peir Grickernir voro nufuser ttl at fylgia konunge oc beriar mea honom ser til fiar ok metnaoar. Even so, they feel a pang on leaving their homeland (AS 146-8; Als 1.370-74):

En allir af peim Isva miklom her nema einn. pa settv augo sin . . fl fostr iaroar aptr urn scut meoan peir matto nockomn vita sra 1

sinnar.

To be in line with Lonnroth's explanation of what lies be~in~ Gunnarr's roughly similar backward glance, the 'clerical mind should regard as morally suspect this attachment to so worldly ~n object as home; and suspicion of its ethical standing, in fact, IS exactly what Walter does express (Als 1.365):

o patriae natalis amor, sic allicis omnes.

o love of natal land, how you lure all men.

H . . . OLD' 'to entice attract,

ere the verb allicio, for which the gives ,

lure' as the primary meanings, does not necessarily ~x.pres~ the censure implied by my translation; following the definition given by LS, the clause containing it could equally well have been re~-

d If' 41 But the word IS ered as 'how you draw all men to yourse .

I· . . t ti ns are reinforced

mora Iy ambIguous, and Its negative conno a 10 .

Al . . thi g that interferes

at s 1.371, where It IS portrayed as some m

. h· 'f mind' towards

WIt the soldIers' mentis acumen, keenness 0 ,

their Persian enemies. The writer of Alexanders saga, however, makes less of the ethical ambiguities at this point and takes a

. . , k d lances or at least a

more POSItIve view of the army s bac war g ,

(AS 143-4). Par matte

more sympathetic and morally neutral one .

ba marka bvessv mikit flestir unna sino Jostrlande. . .

Th . . I ti n despite their

e ordmary soldiers feel this natura emo 10

-- -

41 Pri .. h thi d person, presum

nt, settles for the verb 'to entice' but puts It into t e Ir. . I d d

b f C Iker IS not me u e

a Iy reading allicit in the Latin. This difference rom a

in Pritchard's Jist of textual variants (p. 235).

156

DAVID ASHURST

eagerness for battle and plunder. Alexander, on the other hand, is unmoved (AS 149-12, expanding Als 1.377-78):

konungr sialfr Ieit alldregi aptr til lanzens. sva var honon mikil fyst a at beriaz via Darium konung at hann gleymoe pegar fostrlande sino oc var par eptir moder hans oc systr.

This assertion that Alexander was so keen to fight Darius that he forgot his family and homeland should not be taken as evidence of Alexander's cold ruthlessness but as the sort of overemphasis that seems unfortunate only to modern taste; it super-intensifies th . h h h . b42

e pornt t at Alexander was very keen to get on wit t e JO .,

The succession of ideas in this passage is that Alexand~r s troops were eager to fight the Persians despite feeling homesick which shows just how eager they were, but Alexander was more eager stilI. In fact the saga has already laboured the message about what Alexander's feelings towards his homeland were: as a boy he grows frantic with frustrated rage because he is too young to throw off the yoke of Persian oppression (3.1.1); and he begins to mobilise his forces as soon as he has taken over the reins of government, eigi at eins ser til frtegoar oc framkv¢moar. helldr oc til Irelsis ollu fostrlande sino (AS 816-18; see 3.3.5)· Paradoxically, then, love for his homeland is depicted as one of t~e main reasons why he so single-mindedly turns away and sets hIS face towards the land of his enemies.

4.3.3 Review of the Literary Preparation for the HilltoP Episode. There is, of Course, what must strike the modem ~e~d:~ as a Psychological improbability about the king's sudden g~VIllI:). away of his Own land in favour of what he sees from the hIIlto~, but the saga writer in particular has tried to prepare for rhis through the hYperbolic statement that Alexander promptly forgot Greece because of his eagerness to fight Darius, whereas Wal~er (Als 1.375-76) attributes this emotional volte-face to the enure

42 C . h GuiamaT,

ompare WIt the hyperbole expressing the effects of first love on pier

the much a~mired knight, in Strengleikar (1979, 24): kiennir ha~n nu ;, ok hann kamdl alldri fyrr. Allu hcevir hann nu glteymt jostrllande z: frandom okjostrbrceorum. ok kcenner hann allzcengan verk sarssm .

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

157

fleet. At the same time, and in contradiction to the literal meaning of the exaggeration, the saga affirms Alexander's continued sense of responsibility towards his patrimony by saying that .he divided it mea beim af stormennino er honom botto bess m~cll?stir (AS 153-4, quoted in 4.3.1), a phrase that has no correlative in the Latin (see Als 1.442).

By this point it should have become clear that both Walter and his translator have tried quite hard to prepare for the moment on the hilltop when Alexander claims his new realm, and to present it in the best possible light: the passage as a whole has been constructed so as to stress his confidence in his destiny, his generous care for his new land and SUbjects, and his careful generosity towards his own men whom he must not alienate. It is true that the Latin and Old Norse writers have not quite managed to eradicate all suspicion of greed and heartlessness, and they have not yet explained the basis of that confidence which Lonnroth (1976, 154) perceived as excessive pride, desire for what should not be desired and too much trust in good fortune. But it turns out that they have not yet finished with the matter.

4.4 The Shining Visitant.

4.4.1 The Circumstances of the Visit. A few pages lat~r, Alexander explains to his men why he is so confident of v~ctory. In a story adapting one that descends from the ~ewlsh Antiquities of Josephus (1930-65, XI.333-44), accordmg. to Which God appears to Alexander in a dream and assures him

f· . h ki . made to relate

a success in the conquest of Persia, t e mg IS

how in the period immediately after his accession he lay awake at night revolving in his mind the question of whether he should merely sit at home and defend his inherited realm or embark on an imperial campaign (AS 171-2; Als 1.509-10): ok hugsaoag mea mer hvart ec scyllda at eins veria pat rike er facer minn hafoe an J. tit tes a significant

. eoa ajla mer meira. The last clause cons 1 u

change to the Latin Alexander's thinking at this point, though one that accords well with everything that precedes and follows

158

DAVID ASHURST

it in the story, since Walter (Ats I.509) has it that Alexander was merely incertus sequererne hostes patriamne tuerer, 'uncertain :vhether to pursue the enemy or guard the fatherland'. At this Juncture, says Alexander, he witnessed an apparition (AS 174-6; Als 1.516): kom mikii oc biart lios yfir mec. bvi liose fylgoe einn ~aufuglegr maar ef lofat seal mann at kalla. The subsequent hnes of the Latin text (Als 1.517-20) then scrupulously limit Alexander to describing the man as being strangely dressed in a way suggestive of a priest, whereas the saga, less realistically, has Alexander speak with an understanding which he could hardly have acquired at this point in the story (AS 176-8): hann var harola vel klceddr oc bvi licast sem byscopar pa er peir ero scrydder byscops scruo», The twelve gems sewn onto the man's b~eastpiece show for certain that he is not dressed as a Christian bishop but as the High Priest of the Jews.f ' In addition, the man has something mysterious written on his forehead; the Old Norse version (AS 1710) h . .... Latl'n/

ere con tams an interjection III

Greek, scilicet tetragramaton, 'viz. the name of God', although

~lexander hastens to add, in both the Latin and Old Norse vers~ons, that he could not understand what was written because he did not know the language.

4.4.2 The Divine Promise. As Josephus tells the story,

and als '. I

o as It IS recounted by Petrus Comestor (1855, co.

1497) wh L' . .'

. ' ose ann versior, of the tale was certainly known III

th~rteenth-century Iceland (see 1.3.2) the visitor is explicitly said to be God P bahlv j nd

. . ro ably, III the Christian context of the saga a

ItS Source we at· . I Ch ist in

. ' re 0 recogmse this figure as the etema n

his role as the G H" .' hich

. reat igh Pnest, a characterisation of him w

stems directly from the New Testament." Certainly he speaks

43

See Exodus 28'15 21 b tion to

"f . - . The word biskup is used without ela ora

sign: y the JeWish H' h P '. . d 19) Since

J h' Ig nest In Gyoinga saga (1995, 4,14 an '. I

osep us story w . . . like y

th t as popUlar in European Alexander-literature, It IS

. ah~ost people listening to the saga would immediately understand biskup

In t IS way' others w ld .

44 S H brev ou experience only a moment's confusion- . S)

Tehe Me lre~s 4: 14, and 5:6 which is based on Psalm 110:4 (109:4 I~ B f

e e ChlZedek ref d . . t-kJOo 0

J . erre to In these scriptures was the pnes '"

erusalem In the days of Abraham (Genesis 14: 18).

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

159

with God-like authority and in terms that go far beyond the Josephan promise of help against Persia (AS 1717-18; Als 1.532- 33): Farou abraut af fostr lande pino Alexander. pviat ec man allt folk undir pic leggia. The first part of this is reminiscent of God's command when He spoke to Abraham (BS, Genesis 12: 1, trans. AV): Egredere de terra tua, et de cognatione tua, et de domo patris tui, et veni in terram quam monstrabo tibi, 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto a land that I wiII shew thee'. The remainder suggests, amongst various scriptures, the account of the coming of the Son of Man in Daniel 7: 14 (BS, trans. A V): et dedit ei potestatem, et honorem, et regnum; et omnes populi, tribus, et linguae ipsi servient, 'And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him' .45 This last text comes between two biblical references to Alexander himself, in Daniel 7:6 and Daniel 8:5-8, the second of which is unmistakably alluded to in the Alexandreis (VI.3) and less explicitly in the translation (AS 8411-13). It appears, then, that Alexander is being addressed here as a chosen one, a 'type' of Christ, a characterisation of him that can also be found, for example, in allegorical interpretations of stories from the Gesta ROl1lanorum.46 This idea is picked up again in the last book of the saga and of the epic, where the Infernal Powers fear that ~Iexander might, by force of arms, perform the Christly role 1~ ~ Harrowing of Hell; it is this possibility, in fact, that preCIpItates his death (see 4.5 and 8.3 below). The implications of Alexander's role as a Christ-figure are complex, and it is not easy

-- 45

See also Psalm 72: 11 (71: 11 in BS), which refers to Messiah: Et adorabunt eum 011lnes reges terrae, I Omnes gentes servient ei, 'Yea, all kings shall fall

46 down before him: all nations shall serve him' (trans. AV).

On the other hand, he also appears as a type of the devil. For a discussion of Alexander as Christ and devil in the Gesta Romanorum, cf. Cary (1956,156 ~nd 301-03, note 65). Stories in which Alexander features as Christ appear In Oesterley'S edition of the Gesta Romanorum (1872, 589-90 and 610-11); neither of these anecdotes is in the edition by Dick (Gesta Romanorum 1890). Alexander appears as the devil in Oesterley (p. 589), corresponding to Dick (p. 46).

/ ~

ci1!J~

I

rtsn

160

DAVID ASHURST

~o see how far the messianic analogy can be pressed; but what IS perfectly clear is that, in the episode of the Shining Visitant, Alexander is being given a divine promise and a mission.

4.4.3 The Authentication of the Story. There is a condition attached to the promise, one which is not overtly stated in the story as Josephus and Comestor have it. Before vanishing into the air, the Shining Visitant adds (AS 1718-20; Als 1.534-35): ok ef fJU ser mik nockot sinn pvilikan sem nu synomz ec jJer. pa scalltu byrma minom maunnom fyrir minar sakir. Alexander ends his description of these events and the narrator in both the Latin and the Old Norse versions, ~dds that the re;elation was authenticated by subsequent events (AS 1727-28; Als I.539): En besse vitran fek sina framkvemo litlu sioarr oc sannaoez. There i~ therefore no possibility of construing Alexander's story as fietiona] self-promotion. The proof which is narrated immediately

(AS 1728_1821. Al ' .

, s 1.539-54), comes In the form of a related anec-

dote also stemming from Josephus (1930-65 XI.329-39): after ili'

e sack of Tyre and leading a large army, Alexander approaches

Jerusalem in anger, but he is met by the High Priest wearing full ceremonial robes like those worn by the Shining Visitant; to everyon ' . d

e s surpnse the conqueror does homage to this man an

shows f~vour to the Holy City. In taking this action, Alexander p.roves hIS obedience to the Visitant, demonstrates his piety, and sIgnals. that he both believes and accepts the promise that he has been gIven.

Th V'

e ISltan1's use of the word mer when referring to Alex-

a~der's future meeting with the High Priest, quoted in the preVIOUS par h' k 's

. . agrap, mtroduces a doubt concerning the spea er

identity, which I should pause a moment to consider. It reprodu~es the form of words used in the Latin text (Als 1.534), which can be taken to mean that it is the human High Priest who appears ~n both occasions. Probably, however, the phrase 'if yOU see me' IS to be d' .' since

un erstood as 'If you see someone like me

~he s~ga's subsequent account of the meeting outside Jerusalem implies that the two priestly figures were not one and the same person (AS 188-10):

ttetf ;'0')'('/ , ns,eretrrrrt.,nnI)Wref"rpUtf'Werrr'SmTffW1Srm7t177T?'XU

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

161

oc pegar er konungr ser byscop. pa kemr han am ihug at sa mack var iafnt pannug buinn er honom vitradiz fyrr mein,

Similarly the equivalent passage in the Alexandreis implies that the two figure are not identical although there is a correspondence between them, for it declares that the High Priest wore the same kind of vestments that Alexander had previously seen 'on the heavenly patron' (in sydereo [ ... J presule - Als 1.545). This squares well, incidentally, with the story as told by Comestor (1855, col. 1497), in which Alexander recognised the vision figure as God, and said that he subsequently saw the image of God in the High Priest (vidi in hoc sacerdote ipsius effigiem). But even if the Shining Visitant is taken to be no more than a living man, the miraculous nature of his original appearance to Alexander in Greece shows that he had the right to speak with the God-like authority mentioned earlier; and the subsequent events show that his words were true, just as they show that Alexander'S aCCOunt of his speech was true.

In connection with this last point it should be mentioned, finally, that as Josephus and Comestor tell the tale Alexander does not speak about his encounter with the vision figure until after he has done homage to the leader of the Jews; his story cou.ld, at a stretch, be construed as something made up to explain an im I'

. pu sive act. In Alexanders saga and its source, however,

the CIrCUmstances of the visionary promise are recounted while Alexand . . d

er IS in the ruins of Troy, long before he has conquere

th~ tra~ts of Asia that lie between Troy and Jerusalem. At this POInt, Just after he has referred to the possibility of taking the \~ar beyond the Persian Empire and of conquering the world, hIS cone' . .' I ti f

em IS to steel hIS followers against the tribu a Ions 0

conflict and to inspire them with confidence against any temporary reversals of fortune (AS 1618-28; Als 1.486-98); in addition he wishe t· . h the

s 0 explam the reasons why he himself can ave

Confide hi 628-31. Al

I nee w ich he wants his army to share (AS 1 ,S

.499-501):

162

DAVID ASHURST

En pviat ydr man vndarlict pyckia hvadan ec mega sva mioc treystaz vane farsrelld. pa viI cc nu pat kvnnict gera po at ec hafa hliott yfir bvi Iated higat til.

By telling the story of the visitation in this context with everyt~ing stil.l to play for, Alexander is taking a chance' on the reaction of hIS men, who could reject his word, and on the outcome of ~attles that could prove him wrong. Putting this another way, h~ IS ~erforming an act of faith; for the only possible basis of hIS .act.lOn at this point is his trust in the Shining Visitant and his belief in the promise that was given.

4.4.4 The Literary Purposes of the Episode. After Alexander's story and its sequel have been told it can be seen that the episo~e of the prophetic visitation fulfils a triple purpose in the narratIve.

In the first place it serves, as it does in Josephus, to explain Alexander's strange behaviour towards the High Priest, which was taken as historical by medieval writers. It was universally agreed that Alexander's Successes were in some sense the wiII of God, but those Christian theologians who were hostile to ~im took the view that, as a pagan, he must have been the bl~nd lll~trument of that will. The story of his obeisance to the HIgh Pnest therefore tended to be explained away, if it was referred to at all, by saying, for example that God compelled Alexander to act this way . f Hi ' . d that it

as a sIgn 0 HIS own omnipotence, an

wa~ therefore no act of true reverence. In the writings of th~O- 10gIans who took such a view the story of the dream in whIch God promises to help Alexander is usually ignored (Cary 1956, 125-30). Walter and his translator however by using a version of th d ". 5

~ ream story to explain Alexander's homage as consCIOU

obedIence we han f rn that

. ' re emp atlcally separating themselves ro

hostIl.e theological tradition, even though they make it clear that

the ~lllg remained pagan and in ignorance of God's name. By treating the mat . I . . . . heir works

. ena m this way they were aligning t el

with popular Alexander literature, which took a much more

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

163

positive view of its hero and in which the Jerusalem incident was a favourite episode.

Secondly, the episode of the Shining Visitant casts light back onto Alexander's actions on the hilltop, and onto the course that led him there. It serves to clarify Alexander's motivations and to overwhelm any lingering suspicions we might have about his coldness of heart, over-confidence in his own good fortune, or greedy desire for what he should not desire. Each possible fault is made into a theological virtue. Now it can be seen that Alexander, alone of all the departing fleet, was able to avoid looking back because he alone had received God's command to go; his eagerness was joyful obedience. And the confidence of victory which allowed him to give away his father's realm now appears as an act of faith. As to the pale cornfields, they are not a temptation but a Promised Land; by claiming them Alexander is laying hold of the promise of God, with whatever new responsibilities that might entail.

Thirdly, and most important in connection with Alexander's career as a whole, the fundamental moral validity of the programme of conquest is affirmed by the visitation story through the fact of the divine promise to subject all nations to Alexander, w~ich is immediately authenticated by the meeting with the HIgh Priest. The saga-writer indicates his understanding of this moral issue when, as noted above, he substitutes the phrase afla Iller metra, 'gain a bigger one for myself', in place of sequererne hostes, 'pursue the enemy', as the alternative to merely defending the fatherland. It is precisely at this point in the saga, as Alexander is wrestling with the question of whether or not to embark on conquest, that the divine intervention occurs and gives the most positive answer conceivable, in the form not merely of an aSSurance but also of a command. To say this is not to imply, ?es~ite the Messianic overtones, that the command and promise JuStIfy every (or indeed any) particular act on Alexander's part; but they validate the programme as something that goes beyond mere vengeance against the Persians and beyond the conquest of

164

DAVID ASHURST

the ~ersian Empire alone, which was the formula of the Josephan version,

A final point may be added here although it belongs strictly to the. realm of speculation. If the phrase bleikir akrar was in fact associated with John 4.35, or if that scripture was in the mind of

the translator of Al d . . .'

, exan ers saga, then It IS easy to imagine how

pale cornfields' slipped into the text, or why the translator per-

?aps chose to use the expression despite the awkward clash with

blossom-covered' d ' b

vmeyar s . The Gospel verse as can now e

seen, fits very well ith h bove i . '

'. WI tea ove interpretation of the passage

III w~lch A~exander, on the hilltop, claims the land that God has promised him, for in its context it is Christ's affirmation of the ~eed ~o brook no delay but to see with the eyes of faith what God

as given, to set immediately about God's work and to reap its reward (BS, John 4:34-36):

Meus cibus est ut Iaci J .., . ut

" " acrarn vo untatem ems qUI rnisit me,

perficlam opus' N . . . t r

ems. onnc vos dicitis quod adhuc qua uo

menses sunt, et messis venit? Ecce dico vobis: Levate oculos ve~tros, et videte regiones, quia albae sunt iam ad messem. Et qUI metit, mercedem accipit.

My meat is to do the will of him that sent me and to finish his work. Say not Th 'th

h ye, ere are yet four months and then come

arvest: behold, I say unto you, Lift up yo~r eyes, and look

on the fields' D th' d h that

,or ey are white already to harvest. An e

reapeth receiveth wages. (A V)

4.5 Bearings

Since this chapr b . . f

Al er egan with a reference to L6nnroth's vtew 0

exander's car .

it h eer III relation to that of Gunnarr Hamundarson, I s ould not end . h . ns

b wit out asking whether the above concIusiO

a out Alexand ld s

th . ers saga throw any light on the pale cornfie s a

ey appear III Njdl ? . , 'There

. . s saga. Obviously the answer IS no.

GIS no Possible parallel in terms of Christian significance between unnarr's decisio t . . f his n 0 fisk death amongst the cornfields a

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

own homestead, and Alexander's act of laying claim to a fertile stretch of Asia Minor as the first instalment of God's promise of world hegemony. All that the two episodes have in common for sure is an awareness that productive farmland is beautiful to its owners, expressed in a phrase that examination of Alexanders saga suggests was a standard figure of speech, and which mayor may not have had religious overtones.

The scriptural connotations of bleikir akrar, if they exist, have an immediate relevance to the episode in Alexanders saga in which the phrase occurs, and they underline its meaning; but in the context of Njdls saga they bring little clarification to Gunnarr's use of the phrase or to his reasons for returning home to Hlidarendi. If there is any kind of allusion to John 4:35 in the Njdla passage, is it ironic since it is Gunnarr himself who may be said to be ripe for harvest? Or does it imply that the pagan hero is somehow choosing the kingdom of God rather than long life in the world, exiled from Iceland? Or is the allusion merely prompted by the fact that Gunnarr looks up to the fields? At best these considerations serve only to increase the enigmatic quality of Gunnarr's unexpected words, which remain mysterious to the extent that they are not explained by their context as the thoughts of a man destabilised by depression, who one moment declares pettishly that he will never return to his home, and the next finds that he cannot bear to leave it. My own feeling is that there is something more than this behind the passage; but to find out

What it may be, it is no use looking in Alexanders saga. .

On the other hand, the significance of the pale cornfields. III Alexanders saga turns out to be something well worth loo~mg at for its own sake. In place of a cliche about greed and pride, We find something that wiII seem much more intriguing, not to say bizarre, to modem readers steeped in values that are predominantly democratic, anti-heroic, anti-militarist and secul~r. Alexander's response to the pale cornfields is not, in fact, hIS first false step down the road that leads to tyranny punishable by death.··· . . that ends in the fulfil-

, It IS hIS first giant leap m a career

rneni of God's promise to make him ruler of the whole world. On

165

7757 1 ZlltSS'nnm.tt?

166

DAVID ASHURST

his way to that goal Alexander reveals some moral failings for

which he i dl . . .

. s roun y criticised, as discussed in the next chapter;

a~d having reached that goal he is still not satisfied but turns his thoughts beyond the world. Thus, at a very late stage in his career, he does indeed desire something that, it may be argued, h~ should not desire; but Walter and his Old Norse translator gIve. even this topic a treatment that is complex and highly ~mblguous, shielding their hero from the ultimate condemnanon, as discussed in chapters 7 and 8. In the meantime, as Alexander progresses towards the goal through the action that

God has enjoined up hi hei .. . .

on im, t err admiration for his conquests IS

palpable (AS 845-7; Als V.Sl0-13): Vi/Ide guo at nu vere Fracka ==: slikr sem Alexander var, they say. ba monde skiott allr heimr piona retre tru.

4.6 Conclusions

~e ~ee Alexander fulfilling Aristotle's counsel for the first time I~ his dealings with the Greek cities of Athens and Thebes, but

his crucial first t '. h

. s ep as an imperial conqueror is taken on t e

hIlI.top overlooking the pale cornfields of Asia, when he lays claim to all he H' d surveys. IS behaviour here has been prepare

for by many references to his urgent wish to avenge his realm

for the years of . H'

. . oppressron by the Persian Empire (4.3.2). IS

~Ivmg away of his patrimony in Greece is a rational and politic act that folIo f hi rv

'. ws rom IS decree against ravaging these ne\

t~rntones which he has just claimed (4.3.1), and it is proof of

hIS confidence' hi b" I .

. in IS a ility to make the claim good. The calm

Itself and the .

assurance underlymg it are not as L6nnroth says,

the results of e '. '. n

F xcessivc pnde and ambition or over-relIance 0

ortuna nor do th . tie's

, ey represent a turning away from Aristo

couns~l .(4.3.1); rather they are acts of rudimentary faith based on a divine promise (4.4.4).

The element of faith involved here is indicated by the fact

that Alexand hi .' t's

. er imself tells the story of the Shining Vlsltan

promise "f I

speer tea ly because it is the reason why he can be SO

~2ii

w.r'frttlientf"'t"ftt'rt'trrnftTlt m ; r r 1'7

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

confident of victory (4.4.1 and 4.4.3). There is no possibility that this is mere propaganda (4.4.3). Although Alexander does not understand the Judea-Christian implications of his own story, they would have been very apparent to the audience of the narrative because the terms of the promise require reverence for the people of God and their High Priest (which Alexander fulfils), and do not merely offer world hegemony but offer it in ways that allude to Abraham and the Son of Man (4.4.2), thus characterising Alexander as a type of Christ for the first time in the saga.

Besides helping to clarify the motivation of Alexander's acts on the hilltop and to answer any doubts concerning his confidence in Fortuna (thus tying in with the subject of chapter 2 of this study), the episode of the Shining Visitant establishes the fundamental moral validity of Alexander's programme of world conquest by having God Himself authenticate it (4.4.4). This is a bold strategy for any literary work to use, but it is one that is unanswerable if accepted on its own terms, for as the Bible puts it (AV, Romans 8:31 and 33-34), 'If God be for us, who shall be against us? [ ... J It is God that justifieth. Who is he that condemnethT (Si Deus pro nobis, quis contra nos? [ ... J Deus qui iustificat, quis est qui condemnet?- BS). In the light of this scripture, Walter and his Old Norse translator have put Alexander's world-imperial designs beyond the possibility of cond~~nati~n or the need to be justified. The story of the Shining ~Isltant IS therefore the most important single episode in the entire narr~tive as regards the ethics of empire, for it gives Alexander hIS mandate for all the conquests that the pursuit of empire involves,

even to the limits of the world.

,

dnU'S:'.'



167

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

169

CHAPTER 5

The last part of this quotation, which is based ultimately on prophecies found in Isaiah 13:20-22 and Jeremiah 51:37, illustrates the fact that the great significance of Babylon for Alexander's career, as it is treated in the Alexandreis and Alexanders saga, lies not merely in its status as a capital but in its r~le within the Jewish and Christian traditions. As such it is the city of punishment, humiliation and captivity for the people of God (see Psalm 137, BS 136, besides many other scriptures of the Old Testament), a city that is to be punished in its tum. And it is the place of quintessential wickedness and vice.47 In accordance with this latter view, and simultaneously agreeing with the OldRoman moralism of Curt. V.i.36 on which Walter's text is based, AI~xander is said to be in danger there af margfallego munuolive ~VI. er meira gang hafoe ibessane borg Babilon. en hvervetna loorom stooum (AS 8429-31, expanding Als VI.20-21).

.In the versified capitula to Book VI of the Alexandreis. which are omitted as always by the Old Norse translator, it is s~ated bluntly that Alexander is spoilt by his experiences in the city (cap. VI.l-2, Prit.): Sextus Alexandrum luxu Babilonis et aura I Corruptum ostendit, 'The sixth book reveals an Alexander Corrupted by the extravagance and gold of Babylon.' This state~ent, which mayor may not be Walter's, seems to support the Idea (retailed by Lonnroth 1976, 156) that the rot really set in to. Alexander's career at this point; but it cannot be accepted without careful analysis of the criticisms levelled by Walter in connection with the visit to Babylon, and of the Old Norse translator's adaptations of them, in the wider context of the narrative. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to provide such analysis

The Manifold Life of Lust

5.1 Babylon the Great 5.1.1 Introduction B

mid-point of th : y the end of Book V, which is to say the

gained the fi Ide epic and of the saga, Alexander's forces have

re at Arbela it f h

broke Darin d ' Sl e 0 t e last of the three battles that

s an gave hi th

narrative p IS rone to the Macedonian. Here the

auses for the .

4.5, which I comment quoted at the end of sectIOn

neat y sums u th

pagan conqu fr p e greatness and inadequacy of the

eror rom the p' f vi . k

ers who ad . d . oint 0 view of those Christian thm -

mire his vigo . if .

son like Al d ur. I only the Church had a conquenng

exan er Walt d h .

effect saying th' er an t e Old Norse translator are III

, e rule of Ch . t' .' ld

would be cath I' . ns s representatIves III the war

claim. Thu 0 IC III temporal actuality as well as by spiritual

s we are left deri .

the Church d pon enng the mystery of why it IS that

gave the e ?es not, in fact, have such a son whereas God

mpire of the h 'h

communion f h . eart to one who knew nothing of t e

o t e saints. d h

answer to thi ,an t e narrators themselves have no

IS problem b .

to them a self' ,ecause conversion by force of arms IS

-evident good

On this note the .

Old Norse tr I story turns again to Babylon, to which the

ans ator had d bl t

the very start f rawn attention in his own pream e a

o the saga h . '5

capital and add d .' were he characterised it as Danus

Steti sit! ha/o' ~ ,ommously, that it is now laid waste (AS 14-6): allz rikisens I hann lengstum iBabilon er pa var haujurY borg

en on er n dd oc

annasa eitrky kv u ey a aj monnum fyrir sacir orma

c enda.

47 Both these aspects are summed up, in the Christian context, by the symbolic ~gure of Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots, whom John sees as drunken with the blood of the saints' (ebriam de sanguine sanctorum - BS trans. AV, Revelation 17:6). She is in opposition to the holy city, the new Jerusalem (Revelation 21 :2), which is the true home of Christians. A verse that may have some relevance to the treatment of Alexander's visit to the historical Babylon is Revelation 18:3 - Reges terrae cum illajomicati sunt; 'The kings of the earth have committed fornication with her' (BS, trans.

AV).

7 ·mSrl rrrr nm,wtMf'tr.r.'¥",·

170

DAVID ASHURST

for the Babylonian episode and also for the brief passage of criticism that anticipates it in connection with the Battle of Issus It will be seen that the Old Norse translator's treatment of the issues, whilst broadly following Walter's, is different in certain respects, and that the thinking of both writers is much more complex, as well as less damaging to Alexander, than the Latin capitula might suggest.

5,1.2 Overview of the Babylonian Episode. At this point in his narrative Walter is following Curti us: the detail of Babylonian hosts pimping for their own wives and daughters (Als VI.23-5; AS 853-5) comes from Curt. Y.i.37, and the list of organisational changes within the army (Als VI.33-62; AS 8515_866) is worked up from Curt. Y.ii.I-7. The Roman historian begins his account of the city's immoral influences and demoralising effects with the remark that Alexander stayed in Babylon longer than a~ywhere else, 'and nowhere did he do more harm to the disciplIne of his soldiers' (nec alio loco disciplinae militari magis nocuit - »: Y.i.36, ~rans. Rolfe). This statement is omitted by ~alterf Curtms then gIV~S salacious details (Y.i,37-38) o,f the kmds,oh corporate entertamment provided by the Babylonians. of whic Walter adapts only the least titillating (see 5.2.4 below); after thirty-four days (twenty-two days according to AS 8510), these have the result that the army which had conquered Asia 'would undoubtedly have been weaker to face the dangers which follo~ed, if it had had an enemy' (ad ea quae sequebantur ,diS~ cnmina haud dubie debilior futurus fuit, si hostem habuIs:e - Curt. V.i.~9, trans. Rolfe). This gives Walter the opportUnI:~ for one of hIS verbal twists, since he has it that the army \~ou d ha~e b~en weaker 'if it had erupted, sluggish, onto an unbndle foe (Sl [ ... J effrenum piger irrupisset in hostem _ Als V!.31-2), The, ?ld Norse translator, in his turn, keeps a steady eye ~~ the realItIes of the situation and speaks level-headedly of rnJlItar)' consequences (AS 85"-15):

. 'dryck-

Oc pviat herrenn alIr hafOe nv livat sem Iyste. oc leget 1 "

, 11 h t fVV!lllf

10 a a pessa stund, var sva dignao daden fmorgom. a e

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

171

peira hefoe nu pegar apa laupet. mondo peir ecki sva freknlega

, 'I ' ~ 48

framganga. sem verna var n iamnan aor,

From this point Curti us continues (V.i,39-42) by listing the figures for new recruitments, which were made to the army 'so as to make the damage less noticeable' (quo minus damnum sentiret= V,i.39, trans, Rolfe), Next comes a passage (V.i.43-4S) outlining huge payments to Alexander's chief officers and smaller ones to the troops (funded out of the Babylonian treasury), and the reappointment of Persian officials to positions of responsibility in his new administration - which is construed as rewarding them for having betrayed their country (V.i.44). Only then does Curti us tum to the competitive games and the re-organisation of t~e a~y command-structure that Alexander institutes after moving hIS men out of the city (Vii. 1-7). These are said to have been ~nde,rtaken so that the soldiers would not become slack - yet again - III the fertile countryside. Walter, by contrast, strikes out the earlier two passages and links the re-organisation directly to the enfeeblement of the army in Babylon, presenting it as Alexander's response to that situation (Als VI.33-37):

Ergo Semiramiis postquam Mauo~!us h~ros Finibus egressus Satrapenis constiut arUI,s, , Quedam que dederant patres precepta pnons Miliciae mutanda ratus castrensia, certos Munera sub numeros arguta mente redegit.

. ., b ders the warlike hero

And so, after leaving Semiramia s or, ,

halted in the region of Satrapene. Thinking that certain camp

, ' luding wine women and

48 The demoralising influence that Idle pleasures, me , , ' d h '

if i Classical wntmgs an t err song, have on warriors is a common mot! m f M mouth

d N lit ture via Geoffrey 0 on ,

erivativss It comes into Old orse I era h h t his men

, B ur tells Art ur t a

for example, when King Cador, in reta SQg, , I nation of

, , d adds the followmg exp a

need to begin some hard trarrung, an k persvm l'

their current unfitness (Hauksb6k 1892-96, 290): hofiTh' :'e~ 7he:ttitude th'a;

k I 'ki ~ fi omao konvr IS IS

vetrvm ecki gert Wall teflt 0 et If eoa a " " (F 6stbra:ora

underlies an infamous remark attributed to porgeirr Havarssotn I okra at kon" 0' g Sins krapts. a I

saga 1943, 128): Sagoi hann pat vera svmr III

um,

172

DAVID ASHURST

rules which regulated service in the past, and which had been handed down by the fathers, should be changed, he subtly set the rewards for military service in fixed proportions. (Pri!.)

The Old Norse translator omits the important conjunction ergo, s~ blunting Walter's logic; but the juxtaposition of this passage with the one about the army's demoralisation speaks for itself (AS 8515-21).

After this action the conquests continue relentlessly, in the epic and the saga, for another five books. It can be seen, therefore, that any damage done by Babylonian dissipation was merely temporary, at least in military terms, and that it was Alexander himself who put the situation to rights. Walter limits the damage done to Alexander's reputation, by emphasising this fact ~nd by omitting the material relating to pay and official appomtments, which could be interpreted as bribes; the result makes the remark in the capitula, that Alexander was corrupted by luxury and gold, insofar as it refers to his statesmanship, look more like a COmment on the story as it appears in Curt. than on what happens in the poem.

5.2 Walter S Notes of Censure

5.2.1 The Prophecy of Daniel. Despite, or in addition to, this treatment of the Babylonian episode as a whole Walter includes

so ' .

me notes of censure that are delivered in his own voice. 5Illce

they ar~ Complex and somewhat problematical, this sub-chapter (5.2) will be devoted to examining them in their context, but the ?ld Norse translator's handling of the most significant of them IS analysed separately in 5.3.

Book VI of the Alexandreis opens with an address to Babylon, exhorting her to behold Alexander 'the plague of the world, the sole dread of kings' (lues mundt regum timor uniclIs.Als VI. 1 ) Th Old N ' d thiS,

. e orse translator faithfully repro uces

after follo win hi . to the

g IS usual procedure of drawing attentIOn

fact that WaIter' ki . ..' ice (AS

IS rna mg an intervention m hIS own VOl 849-11):

Itnn

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

173

nu melir meistare G(alterus) pessum oroum til borgarennar isinne boc. Se her Babilon drep heimsins. oc etta konunganna.

In both versions the ominous word 'plague' (lues, drep) is immediately set in the context of God's will against recalcitrant earthly powers through an allusion to one of the most notable references to Alexander in the Old Testament (BS, Daniel 8:5-7), which describes in apocalyptic imagery his overthrow of Persia, symbolised by a ram:

Et ego intelligebam: ecce autem hircus caprarum veniebat ab occidente [ ... J et percussit arietem, et comminuit duo cornua eius, et non poterat aries resistere ei; cumque eum misisset in terram, conculcavit, et nemo quibat liberare arietem de manu eius.

And as I was considering, behold, an he goat came from the west [ ... J and smote the ram, and brake his two horns: and there was no power in the ram to stand before him, but he cast him down to the ground, and stamped upon him: and there was none that could deliver the ram out of his hand. (A V)

Because he takes his time to explain the allusion, Walter can refer to Alexander as a goat without it sounding unduly like an insult (Ats VI. 1-4 ):

ecce Quem tociens poteras, Babilon, legisse futurum Euersorem Asiae, sacra quem predixerat hyrcum Pagina, quem gemini fracturum cornua regni.

Behold him, Babylon, of whom you were so often able to read that he was to be the overthrower of Asia, the he-goat whom Holy Scripture had foretold, who was to brea~ the horns of the twin kingdom. (My translation. Prit. not serviceable here.)

The Old Norse translator, on the other hand, alludes to the prophecy without giving details on this occasion (AS 8411-13):

174

DAVID ASHURST

se her nv I pann Alexandrum er pv matt oppt sinnum sia firir ihelgum bocom oc spasogum at koma mynde. oc sigra alit Asiam.

The phrase at the top of the new page in the manuscript could originally have been bann hajr or bann bukk Alexandrum; but Finnur's apparatus criticus shows no textual variation between the manuscripts at this point, so it is more likely that the reference to the goat was omitted by the translator or an early redactor than that it was dropped unintentionally by the scribe of MS AM 519a 4to. An earlier reference to the prophecy in the saga, however, does employ the term bukkr in a context that places heavy emphasis on Alexander's divine mission as the man destined to punish the Persians for their tyranny (AS 7422-26; Als V.6-10):

sva er til visat fhelgum bokum at penna bardaga have Daniel fire sagt isinne spasogo. oc sa buccr er hann sagde at or nororhalvu heims monde koma, oc Serkiom var sannlega guoleg hefnd sins of sa synir sek nv.

In vi~w .of this earlier reference it is likely that the aIlusi~n to the biblIcal text at the beginning of the Babylonian episode should be interpreted primarily, or even exclusively, as a further affirma~ion of Alexander's divinely appointed role; but it m~st be admitted that the idea of a goat, which is explicit at this pomt of the Alexandreis and is left implicit in the saga, carries stro~g connotations that may be relevant to Alexander's activities III t~e .capital of his new empire. These connotations are set forth in VIvid language by the hostile glossator in a late-thirteenth-ce~tury manuscript of the Alexandreis, Vindobondensi Nationalblbl. 568 (Als p. 430): Per hyrcum debemus intelligere Alexandru~l petulantem et Ietidum ad modum hyrci quia sodomita fillt, 'B th h .. US

Y e e-goat we should understand Alexander, lasclvlo

and stinking i th sexual

n e manner of a goat because he was a

transgressor '49 A ld clearly

. more temperate commentator wou

49 The glossator probably means 'sodomite' in the sense of 'homosexual' since

he lat ib . g sex

e a er attn utes Alexander's pardoning of Nabarzanes to his havm

"ttn

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

175

not regard associations of sexual wantonness as uppermost in the texts under discussion, and in fact they are not mentioned in any of the other three glosses reproduced by Colker; nevertheless, the goat's reputation for lasciviousness may reasonably be borne in mind as a hint in connection with the sexual misdemeanours to which Alexander and his men are prompted by the Babylonians. It is perhaps for this reason that the Old Norse translator or redactor omitted the word for 'goat' in the prelude to the Babylonian debauch but had been willing to use it elsewhere, the suggestion being that he did not want these connotations to be too dominant in the minds of his audience in association with a scripture designating Alexander as the chosen instrument of God's wrath. Putting this another way, the idea of Alexander as a sexual tra~sgressor and that of him as a divinely appointed emperor are being kept as far apart as possible in the Old Norse text.

5.2.2 A Moral Condition for World Empire. Now following Walter closely, the saga continues to exalt Alexander and exhort Babylon not to be haughty towards him, even though he is enclosed by her walls, since he will embrace the whole world with his power (AS 8413-18; Als VI.5-7):

Hygg at honum vandlega nu er pu parft eigi at spyria til hans. oc dramba eigi via honum. poat pv havir hann ~ucoan fire innan sterka tiglvegge. par er hann fadmar allan helm~nn rncd sino vallde. oc sialvir konungarnir r~oaz pegar er pcir heyra nafn hans.

At this point the epic makes an unexpected tum (Als VJ.8- 10):

Rex erit ille tuus a quo se posceret omnis Rege regi tellus si perduraret in ilIa Indole uirtutum qua ceperat ire potestas.

. 458)' but the word 'sodomy'

With the regicide's two beautiful sons (Als p. 'hi d

h ., di I writings as a woe an

as a greater range of meaning than this In me leva . (8' II

f illicit nature O,\\e

frequently designates heterosexual intercourse 0 an J

1980,93, n. 2).

3'W rwwmwermtK tfiWt re ·777· i.erfh?trWttNiNiifrB?Wt'if~'WtW7i'{'WiitWDrntfe'Ct1mtrMU rtE' .

176

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

177

He will be your king, by which king all the world might have demanded to be ruled if the power of virtues had endured in that natural disposition where it had begun. (My translation. Prit, not serviceable here.)

There are various problems with this remark. In the first place the past tense of the verbs is scarcely appropriate in the context of something addressed to Babylon at a time when Alexander's moral lapse was still in the future; the addressee, in fact, changes in the course of the sentence, from Babylon to the reader. Secondly, it is not at all clear what uirtutum potestas ('the ~o.wer of.virtutes') actually signifies; and the plural term virtutes IS I~self highly ambiguous: here it probably means 'virtues' in an ethical sense, since Alexander is about to be implicated in the ~candalous night life of Babylon, but it could just as well mean ~trengths' or even 'military talents' (LS, under virtus). In addi-

tion the r~m~rk seems to suggest, very questionably, that living a mor~l life IS a matter of staying within the limits of a given, essentIal propensity for goodness.

M . .

ore Important, Walter's comment looks very much like a

hostile judgement on Alexander's career as a whole. Taken at face value it would normally imply that the world did not ask AI~xan?er to be its ruler and that, consequently, he must have relInqUIshed the natural disposition towards virtue that he had possessed at the beginning _ in other words he failed, politically an~ morally, to fulfil what he could and should have achieved.5o ThIS apparentl .. has

. Y negatIve Judgement of his career, however,

t? be seen In the perspective of what happens later in the narra-

tive (as d] . . d·

. as Iscussed In chapter I). The logical sequence implIe III

the Judgement is invalidated in Book X when the implied state-

m t h ,.

en t at the peoples of the earth did not sue to Alexander IS

flat.ly contradicted by the episode in which all the unconquered natIOns do send ambassadors and put themselves in his power 50 To spell things t th I . . , hi ower of

. out, e ogIC IS as follows· Walter states If IS P

virtu s h d .'. h the

e a endured, then the world would have sued to him;' for whlc

cont . . ·rtUes

d. rapOSItlve is 'If the world did not sue to him then his power of VI

id not endure.' ,

(AS 14932-15024; Als X.216-82). That they did so, however, cannot be taken as proof that Alexander actually maintained his virtuous disposition throughout his career, since it is made plain (Als X.219-26 and X.250) that the nations come to him not principally out of respect for his moral stature but out of fear. The saga puts the matter succinctly (AS 1501-5):

sidan er spuroiz vm vestrhalfu heimsens. oc nororhalfv. at hann hafoe undir sec laget allt Asiam. pa stod aullom hof?cngiom sva mikil ognn af han om. at allir villdu hclldr piona honom. en hetta til at risa vid,

What the later events actually do is to disqualify the answer t~at Walter seems to be prompting, in Als VI.8-10, when he firs~ raises the question of whether Alexander suffered a moral decline.

Viewed in the perspective of what happens later in the .sto?" then, the negative judgement of Alexander's career implied III Als VJ.8-1 0 certainly looks like an inconsistency as well as constituting a sharp change of tone in its immediate conte~t. On the other hand, it would be possible to regard it as a conscious longterm ploy meant to tease the reader, since it has already been seen (sections 3.3.4 and 4.4) that the gambit of raising moral objections in the reader's mind only to rebut them later on was used by Walter in connection with the word con iura! (Als 1.202), when the possibility that Alexander 'conspired' against the world in some bad sense was eventually answered when God promi~ed him the world a; a gift (Als I.533). God's promise, too, has to be borne in mind when considering the remark at V1.8-1 0: the only condition in exchange for world hegemony was not a perfectly moral life, but to spare the people of Jerusalem. AI~ of hi . h I· ht of the problematical

t IS, however, must also be seen III t. e ig . 5 4

passage in Book III which wiII be discussed below (section .)

, . h f to the

and which, in its tum, must be interpreted Wit re erence

present passage.

5.2.3 A Recapitulation. At this point the Old Nor:e transla-

. . ith the follOWing words

tor correctly marks a recapitulatIOn WI

(AS 8422): Se. segir hann enn til borgarenllar. Here Walter

178

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

179

addresses Babylon d ti

a secon time In terms ostensibly favourable

to Alexander (Als VI.II-15):

Has tamen a tenero scola quos inpresserat euo Omatus animi, poliendae scemata uitae, Innatae uirtutis opus solitumque rigorem Fregerunt Babilonis opes luxusque uacantis Desidiae populi quia nil corrupt ius urbis Moribus illius.

Asp~ce quam blandis uictos moderetur habenis. Asp~ce quam clemens inter tot prospera uictor.

Asplce qua " d'

. m ~ItIS ictet ius gentibus ut quos

H?stes m bellIs habuit cognoscat in urbe Cines et bello quos uicit uincat amore.

Behold with wh t I .

b hi' a gent e rems he controls the conquered;

b:h °l~' how m~rciful a conqueror he is amid all his successes;

th 0 hr how mildly he administers justice to the nations, so

at t ose he regard d " .

. '. e as enemies in war he recogmzes as

CItIzens In a cit d h

y, an t ose he conquered by war he now con-

quers by affection. (Prit.)

Yet Babylon's wealth and the extravagance of a people devoted to sloth broke those embellishments of the mind which had been stamped upon him from an early age by his schooling, and which were the essentials for a life of refinement. They weakened, too, the work of inborn virtue and Alexander's accustomed firmness. For there is nothing more corrupt than the manners of that city. (prit., modified.F!

5.2.4 Sexual Mores. The last clause in the previous quotation is taken from Curt. V.i.36, as mentioned in 5.1.1. With it Walter joins up with the Roman historian's account of Babylonian debauchery (Als VI.23-25; AS 854-8):

I .

B b vl VIew of the fact that the citizens of this particular city of

a y on have a stron 1 d '" '

ar h g Y emorahsmg Influence on Alexander 5

my, t ese remarks . .

. . In praise of his lenient rule could be seen

as ironic: but the . .

d ' same Idea IS expressed again in a context that

oes not sugg t i . '

d 6 3 es Irony, In Als VIII.506-13 (AS 12916-28; see 6.2.9

an . below) wh l' .

VI 15' - wnere mes VIII.508-9 in particular echo line

. ,and Alexand hi h'

. er imself, at the supreme moment of IS

career, pomts out th h d

promises that it . at t ~ yoke of his government is easy, an

. . WIll contmue to be so for all who do not rebel

agamst hIm (AI X

likelih d s .289-98; AS 15029-1513; see 1.2.2 above). The

00 , therefore' h . . (J

Alexa der ' . ' IS t at the passage in Book VI pralsIllc

n er s mIldn h

ment of him a ess s ould be accepted as a positive assess-

J ' nd not as a sarcastic attack

ust as these li .' h

tone of th fi nes, accordIng to this view recapitulate t e

e irst add 'bl

to Al d ress to Babylon, which had been favoura e

exan er so al h f

him 1'0 hi ' so t ey are followed by a passage critical °

, l' r w ich the Ii h

diffi 1" ear rer unfavourable remarks despite all t e

ICU ties In which h . '

an antici ti t ey Involve the reader, can now be seen as

pa IOn. Once a . he i f J11

which Al gaIn, t e Idea of an innate goodness ro

exander de li d I'

sage (Als VI. 1 6-2 1 ):c me features prominently in this neW pas-

si tan tum detur acerbi Flagicii precium, non uxores modo sponsi

Sed prolem hospitibus cogunt prostare parentes.

Provided a sufficient price is paid for their bitter shame, not only do husbands force their wives to sell themselves to their guests, but parents their children. (Prit.)

To this Walter adds a stingingly sarcastic comment of his own (Ats VI.26-7, modified in AS 858-1°):

Sollempnes de nocte uident conuiuia ludos Quos patrio de more solent celebrare tyranni.

Night-time banquets witness those customary entertainments absolute rulers are wont to celebrate by ancestral tradition. (Prit.)

51 In place of the italicised words 'broke' and 'weakened', both of which r~nder the single wordfregeru1l1, Pritchard has 'destroyed'. See the discusSIon in 5.2.4.

----------------)11$11717."1".71'1117175171'tt17Itll'1I71"tl'Mlttl''tIll'.'Yml'IIIIIilW •• 'ili"I'hl""lltlftll")litiT)I""i''''I''ii"j,IItIi'ii'ISlt'I'01l'I'TiI'"''I'fi''''tl'rtl'''llti"fml'Mlltlrl' 1171'.C.' '1'11':11"'1'111711' -----------1Iii

, ~ ..

180

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

181

DAVID ASHURST

Ap~t. from any significance the last quotation might have as a satmcal comment on the practices of Walter's own day, it also slyly indicates (with the word tyranni) that Alexander, the onl.y .a~solute ruler in the case, was personally involved in these activities The next lines (Als VI.28-9) confirm the point with the following statement:

else, by transference, 'subdued', 'weakened', 'diminished', 'violated' or 'softened' (LS, under jrango). 'Broke' seems to me the most appropriate term for what might happen to 'embellishments of the mind', whilst 'weakened' or 'softened' would fit best with the reference to 'accustomed firmness'; but all of the above renderings could fit the context and none need imply finality, since it is possible to break acquired principles without destroying them. That Walter did not intend jregerunt to signify an irrevocable destruction of Alexander's moral fibre is indicated by what he says about innate virtue in line V1.18: note that it is innatae uirtlitis opus, 'the work of inborn virtue', not the inborn virtue itself, that has been broken (or subdued, or violated etc.) by exposure to Babylonian vice.

In the passage as a whole, then, the poet appears to have striven to criticise Alexander sharply for not living up to a pagan, or indeed a Christian ideal of sexual continence, but has drawn back from the implication that this meant the permanent ca~astrophic destruction of his moral identity; and this sorts well \:lth the interpretation, given above, of his earlier comments at lines VI.8-10 - comments which had seemed to suggest that Alexander suffered such a moral decline as to deny him the surrender of the whole world, but which tum out to be incorrect if they are suggesting any such thing.

Hos inter luxus Babilonis et ocia Magnum Ter deni tenuere dies et quatuor.

T~irty-four days held the Great One among the excesses and leisure of Babylon.

~n Curt. V.i.39, by contrast, it is specifically the army rather than Its commander th t . id . "d

. a IS sal to be 'fattened up' (saginatus) am

these dIsgraces' (inter haecjlagitia).

. It has already been demonstrated (5.1.2) how Walter mini-

mtses the milita . ifi h

. ry sign: Icance of the Babylonian debauc .

emphasIses Alexand' I' . .' d

er s ro e m rescuing the situation, an sup-

presses all menf f h . . t

Ion 0 t ekIng's monetary dealings - excep

fo~ the ~as:ing reference to 'wealth' (opes) at line VI.19, which

mIght tie in v ith h . I

. . VI t e remark about offering men suffiCIent Y

hIgh pnces for the prostitution of their wives and daughters. ~a~ concerns Walter, then, is not so much the breaking of t at accustomed firmness' (soUtus rigor _ Als VI. 18) by which Alexander cont I hi

. ro s IS troops, as the loss of chastity.

DespIte the Christian context in which he was writing, Walter

has made some ff . f the

e tort to see sexual continence in the light 0

pagan morality th t . . h of

hi a was more appropnate to the social et os

IS pro~agonist. He expresses it in Als VI.17 as a matter of those

embellIshment f h . . e

h sot e mmd and patterns of a refined life that ar

t e products of g d h . ld ub- 00 sc ooling and that, presumably, cou s

sequently be rein t t d if . . or

. s a e 1 Ignored on any particular occasIOn,

relearnt If forg tt 'T' l'(es

o en. 10 express what happens to these qua I 1

Wa~ter employs the termfregerunt (Als VI.19), which Prit. gives as destroyed' iblv I The ,POSSI Y Implying an irremediable event.

term, however wo ld 'b ke' or

, u more naturally be rendered as ro

5.3 The Old Norse Translator's Handling

of the Censure

- 3 . t of course. that

) .. I Perfection in Every Respect. It IS rue. .

\IT I b ,. that he IS subtle.

"a ter has not made his meaning at all 0 "IOUS, . .

if t the point of rms-

I the above interpretation is correct, almost 0 . d

I . uld be explaille

eadIng the reader and that the whole passage co h

h ' I hi k r apt to express eac

as t e work of a messy and forgetfu t III e . . .

. . . h overall vlewpOIllt.

POInt 10 the most emphatic way but Wit out an . . ,

As will be seen however the Old Norse translator gives h~Sho\~n

adaptation of this materi'al a tenor roughly consonanthwlt t toe

. d ing what e can

Interpretation of the Latin presented here, 01

182

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

183

DAVID ASHURST

clarify matters and salva .

as possible withi . g~ng Alexander's reputation as much

,lIn the limits all d b

Walter's text. owe y reasonable fidelity to

In the first place he foIl

earlier un favour bl ows the general outline of the poet's

a e remarks' Al

puzzling comme t bInS VI.8-1O. He includes the

. n a out the t der whi .

might have surrend d erms un er which all nauons

f ere themsel b .

o moral action (AS 8418-21): ves, ut subtly changes the basis

pessi skal vera pinn k

gimaz til yvi onungr. er aull veralldar bygden mette

peim mannk: tser at hava. ef hans tign hellde vel falla staile s om er hann tok vpp ffysto mea henne.

Note that the moral lif .

servative appr hIe, here, IS characterised not by the con-

oac of stay" . hi .. .

natural disposif mg WIt m the limits of a pre-gIven

ion, as Walter h "

more dynamic as It m lines VI.9-1O, but by the

approach f h ld'

acquired, leavin 0 0 mg on to those virtues already

ti g Open the p ibili ..

Ion of new v·rt. OSSI I ity of growth and the acqUlSI-

The Word It" ues.In addition to the old ones.

. 19n, In the quot ti

mgs that includ a Ion above, has a range of mean-

t es aspects of . I

ogether with ethi I . SOCIa position dictated by descent.

s . Ica standIng' . h'

oClety. Its mea . as perceived and validated WIt in

nmg of 'high bi h' . .'

a rough equivalent ~rt (CV, under tign) nes It III as

Als VI. 1 0) and hto the LatIn indoles (,natural disposition'.

b ,suc are di

y noting that th . .a Ing of the term could be supported

. e ad]ectlV ti .

sImply to mean ' f h' e. tgtnn IS used in Alexanders saga

Alexander has th °b ~gh birth' in a passage recounting how

. d e odies f b

re after the Battl f 0 no lemen (lie tiginna manna) bur-

III.275-76)' as e 0 I~sus (AS 4631, this being an addition toAls I ,an eqUIvalent.t:" . . h' oses something of the L . lor indoles, however, 'high bl~

ficuIt to see ho atin word's moral aspect and it is dJf-

h. w such a st ti '

anyt Ing. At the th a IC concept can be said to hold onto

a hi 0 er extrem 'h

. n et ica] concept iFri e, onour', in its modem sense as

mg for the noun wh =. under tign), is the appropriate meanour demanded' ( en It IS said that Alexander acted 'as his hon-

Al sem hans t' b

s VI.293-97) b . 19n yriaoe - AS 9328, an addition to

y endowIng the mutilated Macedonian soldiers

with the means to settle in Asia. This reading of the word has the advantage of being relatively independent of the concept of class position, which is perhaps extraneous to Walter's use of indoles, but it also loses his idea of an essential propensity for goodness and sets the moral life on the footing of acquired behaviour. The ethical and class-oriented aspects of the root word, however, are definitely combined in a passage of Alexanders saga where the narrator expresses his disapproval of the Persian noblemen at the Battle of Issus, whose flight puts the entire army into retreat (AS 4417-18, and see the subsequent lines): Eigi standa par oc titignir eptir er tignir flyia. The reference to non-noblemen and noblemen here is again an addition to the Latin, but the passage's moral criticism of the leaders is taken from Walter's text (Ats VI.209-14). The saga writer is clearly indicating that high birth b~ngs with it ethical responsibilities, which the Persian nobles f~II to fulfil. In the text concerning the word indoles, there~ore, us» should probably be taken as retaining the concept of a given m?ral potential but conceiving it specifically in terms o~ somethl~g bequeathed by noble ancestry and which has t~ be hved up to In subsequent life. Hence what was a psycho-ethIcal category in the Latin has been replaced by a complex socio-ethical cateGO .

to ry III the Old Norse. .

Most important, although it is still implied that the inhabIted

world . . h Old Norse text

would not seek Alexander as king, III t e

the I . f hi moral career

ogIcal consequences for an assessment 0 IS .

are g I ., .' h h f the Lann. Even

. reat y restricted III comparIson WIt t ose 0 ..

If this were the last word on the subject, without the revISIon of

perspective brought about by the events of Book X, it would o~ly m . d hi ve perfectIOn

ean, at worst that Alexander had faile to ac ie I

, f' . L' text As ia fa staoe (a phrase with no equivalent III the atIll .. '. d

VI 8 1 . I d r to be cntIcIse

. - 0). ThIS leaves ample room for A exan e .'

roundly for his Babylonian spree without fatally ~amagIllg h~S reputation as a whole. The saga writer's ethical Judgement, III oth asonable and not

er words, is strong but essentially humane, re

at all extreme.

184

DAVID ASHURST

185

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

5.3.2 The Loss of Righteousness. The same qualities of

humane common' .

. . sense, restraint and a predominantly social

VISIon are brought to bear by the Old Norse translator on his second passage of l cri . .

mora cnncism (corresponding to Als VI.16-

21), after he has II d .

. ca e attention once again to the fact that he

8Is4fsaraphrasing Walter's interjected comments on the story (AS -852):

recovered its brightness after the eclipse, Alexander could regain Aristotle's standards after missing or feeling the want of them - which also seems to be the meaning arrived at by Walter's text after many convolutions and contrary to its apparent tone.

The humane sense of proportion exhibited by the Old Norse version of these critical remarks, however, should not be taken to imply that the translator shows a dismissive attitude towards what he has already called 'the manifold life of lust'. Far from it. If anything, he seeks to intensify his audience's reaction against Babylonian outrages by setting out the facts in slightly pedantic detail (AS 852-8; Als VI.21-25):

Nu snyr mreistare sino male rnein til konungs sialfs. oc segir sva. At af margfallego munuOlive bvi. er meira gang hafile ipessaRe borg Babil6n. en hvervetna Ioorom stoOum. oc af ug:ynne fiar pvi er hann fek par. misti hann pess retletis oc

beira manndyro h . .

. a er ann hafde numet af meistara smom

Anstotili.

Sva mioc er pat fole orscamma er penna stad bygee. at pa cr vinet villir huge manna. oc kveycir liotlega losta gimd. lata peir er veita vinet beoe falar vie feno konor sinar oc detr. oc cf dryckrenn gerir peirn tisparan peninginn er ser viII kono kaupa. pa pytir hann hana nauoga er fala letr, ef hon viII eigi lostcg.

In connection with the verb pyta in this passage, Fritz. gives gjore (ell Kvinde) til ptita, and this definition is backed up co~vincingly with quotations. The word hann in the clause PJ:flr ltanr; han a nauoga has to refer back to the host, with the s.lgnificance that it is he who prostitutes the woman by compulsion if necessary _ which accords with the sense of the Latin (Als \'1.25). The definition of pyta in Fritz. is certainly to be preferred to that in CV, which cites the present passage in Alexanders sa~a

d . . that carnes

an c~nslsts of the single word stuprare, a Latm term . ~

the pnmary meaning 'to defile' and has as secondary mean .. ~g :to debauch, deflower, ravish' (LS, under stupro): the. definItIOn III CV is therefore too general and rather misses the point, .

For the women who are forced into prostitution by their husbands or fathers the sympathy and sense of outrage pron:pted b . .' .' th Old Norse ) the narrative is much the same III the Latm and e

versions of the text but there are differences in the moral tre~tm ' . . t ains to clarify

ent of the men concerned. The saga writer IS a p .'

h d I tauvely

I e fact that the Babylonian hosts cynically an exp 01

Pr'd . h will be a market

OVI e Wille to inflame their guests so that t ere

In comparison with Hr It' " .. . t r

wa er s ongmal this IS a very SUCCIflC a

even subdued t t

h s a ement of Babylon's influence on the hero, one

t at expressly . h

sees ng teousness and virtue in terms of adherence to acquired . .

. pnncIples, and this time definitely eschews the

questIonable con t f" Al VI 18) . ~ep 0 inborn goodness' (innata virtus, S

. h . Its concISIon and effectiveness depend to a large extent

on t e expressi "

1 ' on mtsti hann bess retletis which I would trans-

ate as he felt th .' .

e want of that nghteousness' _ possibly a temporary state of ffai

. a airs - but which could alternatively take the

meanmg that Al d . h

52 W . ex an er SImply lost his righteousness altoge' -

er. hIchever . . d

f II 1 meanmg was intended it is clear that Alexan er

e cu pably h ' . d

'1 . s ort of the moral standards by which he had lIve

unn that time' b t i . . d

. ,u It IS also clear that the translator has plcke

an expressIon th t h

Poss'b'l' a suggests, or at the very least leaves open, t e

I I ity that the k' 's fai .

t mg s atlmgs on this occasion constitute a

emporary lapse . li

t I' ' as Imp led by the use of the verb in the phrase

ling mtsser sin, b' . ib

1. tar trte, whict, elsewhere in the saga desert es

an ec Ipse of the

moon (AS 555). By inference, just as the moon

52

cv glosses the term ' . h

loss of' to whic .. as to mISS, not hit, lack' or 'to miss, lose, suffer t ,e

Fr 't: :.. h Zoega 1910 adds 'to feel the want of' and 'to be without.

1 ~. gives: gaa gli if II

sigter; v' d. 'P a noget saa at man ikke rammer det, hvorefter /110

• are II en noget; savne noget.

l

----

186

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

187

~or the wives and daughters, whereas the Latin text in the lines Immediately preceding the mention of forced prostitution can b~ read as implying that the Babylonian men themselves drank wine to break down their own inhibitions (Als VI. 2 1-23):

Pat er par oc sidr via dryckenn. at iarnvel hofocngiarnir sial vir scm aorir lata leika fire ser allar netr nalcga.

nichil est instructius illis

Ad Veneris uenale malum cum pectora multo Incaluere mero.

There is, of course, no covering up the fact that Alexander Was guilty of something that both Walter and his adaptor regard as sexual misconduct; but to a greater extent than the poet docs, the Old Norse translator carefully leaves open the questions of just how guilty Alexander was, and of precisely what.

No, one is better equipped to practise Venus' venal sin, once their hearts are heated with much unmixed wine, (Prit.)

The Old Norse translator emphasises the role of drunkenness as s?m~thing that makes money no object (gerir peim Llsparall pemngmn) to the man whose passions are aroused by the wine,

Intemperate d inki , ' '

, nn mg IS therefore seen by the saga wnter m

this passage as the vice that gives occasion to the indecencies committed by the Macedonians; but it is the love of money, of course, that is the root of the evil perpetrated by the Babylonian

hosts whil t i , '

, I S It IS the Macedonians' possession of wealth that IS

the ~asis of all that follows, and in this sense the Old Norse text provIdes a practical commentary on an earlier passage that had

all '

, egonsed Money (Pecunia) and similarly linked her to lust and

mtemperance (AS 6922-24; Als IV.422-23):

p,ar sitr ~c sv frv er Pecunia heitir er gnegra hevir gull en gada Slav, pviat hon er losta noreng oc vanstilles moder.

, Having somewhat intensified the account of Macedonian Immorality in the houses of Babylon however the Old Norse

translat d "

or raws back a little from saying that Alexander was

personally invol d i tinu-

, ve III such outrages, Whereas Walter, con

mg from this p , ki (J by

II Oint, makes a sarcastic jibe against the 111,:,

a uding to the customary sports of absolute rulers (Als VI.26-7). ~he saga spreads amongst the whole group of leaders the blame

lor what "

ever It IS that takes place (AS 858-10):

5.4 The Comments after the Battle of /SSIIS

5A,1 Alexander's Treatment of the Persian Queens. All the ethical topics that have just been discussed in connection with the Babylonian spree are anticipated in a passage of bitter criticism that is inserted into the narrative after the Battle of Issus and that glances forward to events that come much later in Alexander's career,

The context of the passage is a disapproving description of how the Macedonian rank and file, following their victory in the battle, greedily stowaway the spoils that Alexander has divided equally amongst them, and rape the women whom they find in the Persian camp (AS 4431-4512; Als III,220-33), In sharp contrast to this is the behaviour of Alexander himself, who has the mother. wife and young son of Darius conveyed to a place of safety. and Who SUbsequently accords them the respect and security that he would have given to his own relatives.Y No doubt this course of action can be interpreted as an attempt on Alexander's part, to Incorporate himself symbolically into the Persian royal family as son to the Queen Mother and brother to Queen Stateira. she being both wife and sister to Darius as the saga writer reminds us (AS 4516), Walter and his translator, however. see this behaviour entirely as evidence of Alexander's mercifulness and, by implica-

51 E'd "lid ha 'e been appreciated

- \ I ence for the way in which these detai S wou \

, hi in th nt b)' Studa l'I:\n},

In t Irteenth-century Norway can be found rn t e stateme ,

arson (1887. 191) that King Hakon Hakonarson commanded hl~ men (1/

I ld. [ II " rfi" sn fyrir 11OflUIII,

ia a",] kvenna-grio, svd scm alit hans/ore" 10 (I go ,

188

DAVID ASHURST

tion, sexual continenc . th d '

e; ey are eeply Impressed by it on these

terms and only regret th t th ir hero di ", '

, a err ero did not contmue living III

this way up to the end of his career (AS 4517-23; Als III.241-44):

sva var mikil illdi k

" I nu I onungs at hann var pannog til mooor

DanJ ,sem hann monde til sinnar rnodor ef hon vere par, Drotnmg kono D "k 11 .

anj a ar hann systor sina, sveinenn genr

hann ser at oscbarne. Sva mikil mandoms ast bygde briast kon~ngs Ipann tima ef vpp tekinn hattr helldez mea honam at engi ufrC(!go mC(!tte saurga hans ena biorto frega,

In connection with thi b b "

hIlS ar ed praise It should be noted, first,

t at Alexander nev

, er ceases to behave well and with sincere gen-

eroSIty towards D ' 's f ' ~

D ' anus s arnily, a fact that eventually prompts

~nus to give thanks that Alexander is sva milldr vvinr oc nllskunsamr '

stsrvesore (AS 589-10; Als IV 65-66)' see also 3,2.3

above for a discus ' f Al ", ,

sion 0 exander's relationship with Darius s

mother, Secondl it h '

, Y 1 s ould be remembered that Alexander s

me~clful treatment of all those who submit to his rule is stressed

t~gam fand again throughout the narrative right up to the descrip-

IOn 0 h' d ' ,

no ch IS ymg day (see sections 1,2,2, 3,2,3, 6,2,9 and 6.3);

ange ever overt k hi , f

hi hi a es un with respect to this element 0

IS et ica] policy 0 hi

, r IS own moral nature, Thirdly, as concerns

sexual contmence h' h i ,

d hi ' W IC IS Implicitly praised in this passage

an w ich IS mad' , d

t ,e mto an Important issue when it is reporte

o an astonIshed Darius (AS 5710_5811, Als IV40-66) it must be

conceded that Ale d ",

duri h xan er probably participates in the debauchery

nng t e few week h he i '

di , s w en e IS III Babylon for the first nme. as

Iscussed in 5 2 4 d '

, ' , an 5,3,2 above, but he remains notably contI-

nent in every other f If f

th part 0 the narrative, including the full ha 0

e story that postdat th ' t

hown I es e Babylonian episode, Alexander IS no

s own In a state of d k ' d

apart f run enness at any point in the narratIve; an

rom Whatever h t ' , "the

onl ' e ge s up to m the WIcked capItal City,

y occaSIOn on who h h 'th

, IC e certainly has sexual intercourse WI

anyone IS When the A h ir

t b ' mazon Queen, who is seeking a female er

be e slre~ by a SUitably great man, visits him and asks him to

eget a chIld with h h' f

er - w ich he manages to do in the course 0

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

189

the thirteen nights before the Amazon returns to her own country (Als VIII.8-48; AS 1169-1172°), This brief episode is narrated decorously and without any adverse comment, especially in the saga, which suppresses Walter's little joke to the effect that 'outstanding vitality reigns in the secret parts' (Regnal in obscuris preclara potentia membris - Als VIII,35), Alexander even makes a kind of marriage proposal in characteristically military terms before agreeing to the Amazon's request (AS 11714-15; Als IV.44- 45): Villtv sagoe k0I111l1gr vera mea mer ihernaoe oc scilla: eigi ifra Iller, The unspoken thought underlying this proposal and the entire episode that contains it is surely that so great a warrior as Alexander, who has long since restored his army's morale after the Babylonian spree, will not consider having sexual relations with anyone but a soldier, albeit a female oneY His involvement with the Amazon Queen, therefore, should be taken as proof that he has recovered his moral stature, and not as evidence of further degeneration,

In view of these considerations, it can be seen that the implication that the' great love of goodness' (mikil mandol1ls dst) did not maintain its place in Alexander's heart, is not well supported by the evidence of the later narrative, at least in so far as the love of goodness is exemplified by the conqueror's chaste ~oncern for Darius's family and by the issues raised by this, As It tu~S out. however, the real purpose of the ominous notes sounded III connection with Alexander's love of goodness is to prepare the aUdience for two criticisms of a different and very serious nat~re, which will be discussed in the next sections; but before turning to these other criticisms I must first point out that the context in which they are made has been set out by Walter and the Ol.d ~ , icnifi t for our ethi• orse translator in terms that are highly sigm ican

cal judgement on Alexander's career as a whole, Although ea~~ of th ' icised resents a 'discredit

e moral failings that is to be critrcrse rep .

to Alexander (as CV glosses the word lijr{Ega), it must be seen

-- .'

~ A' .' d . be n mentioned In <,CctJOn

s to having sex with male soldiers, It has alrea y. e. with He hac,tion,

3.2.8 that Walter's hints about Alexander's relationship P

Such as they are, find no place in the saga.

a_

190

DAVID ASHURST

as something that has been able only 'to sully his illustrious fa~e' (saurga hans ena biorto jrego) - this, but no more than this. To Walter and his Old Norse translator, the brightness of

Alexander's tati

. repu anon IS lessened by these matters but is splen-

did all the same.

. ~.~.2 Alexander's Killing of His Men. The passage of cntlclsm appended to the account of the events after the Battle of Issus continues as follows (AS 4523.3°; Als III.245-52):

En sioan er fen ginn auor Serkia oc peira bilive gaf ave no framgang. en fiarens gnott vanstilles mooer talde hvetvetna soma ba tok hamingian at spilla nattvrunne. oc lestir at stemma kraptanna n'is oc peim aptr at snua. pviat sa enn same

er fYR var milld ' '. ..

'. r ovmom smom gerdiz sloan fiandmadr sumra

vina smna, let drepa pionostomenn sin a sialfs. oc etlade engan Iut hermannenum bannaoan.

Here we have a forthright statement that Alexander was to some extent corrupted by the blandishments of Fortuna. a theme

that was outli d i . .

, me III sectIOns 2.3,2 and 2,3,3; and we find agam-

as discussed in 5 3 2 b' ,I h

. . a ove, the Idea that the possession of we a t

stands at the ro t f i . h

o 0 Immoral behaviour because it provides t e

opportunity for ' d I . , (. .

. . III U genes III the pleasures of 'excess 1(1T1

slllIl) which i th fi ' f

.: n e irst lllstance are to be understood as those 0

drmkmCt and h '

II 1:;0 , W ormg. The extent to which Alexander was mor·

a y damaCted h h b "

1:;0 • owever, s ould not be exaggerated on the asl.

of the statement h h' b..,'

. ' ere, t at Fortuna began to spoil hiS nawn.: .

for It has already b . . . d k-

een argued III the previous secnon that run

enness and sexual' . , I"e

. Illcontmence play no role in Alexander s II

as descnbed in th . . d t

h '. e narrative except in the Babylonian eplSo e a

t e beglllnll1g of Book VI. Wealth itself furthermore never has

a strong hold AI " , th

fact th it Over exander, as can be shown by pointlllg to e

h. a before the great battles at Issus and Arbela he promises IS Own share of th '1 hi eli e spor s to his men declarinz that he rrns

wants only 1': ( 'b, .

I ,arne see 2,2.2), and by notins that while he IS !O iot pursuit of D ' , k' biter anus s 'Iller, which occurs considerably a

than the supposed I ' , 'h S

Y corruptmg acquisition of Baby loman nc e:

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

191

Alexander orders his men to lighten their loads by piling up their booty to be burnt - the king's own possessions being the first to go, and the blaze being lit by his own hand (AS 11727-118 II,; Als \'111.52-69). In connection with this act Alexander is specifically commended for having freed people from the tyranny of wealth US 118IX,20; Als VIII.73-74): beir cr aor hofoo verct fiarcns i"r/ar. sci/()II IIV at beir IlOj()O beget frelse sill, mci) konungscns r(/()c oc elltens pionostv. There is consequently no justification for supposing that Alexander himself remained heavily under the demoralising influence of wealth.

The statement that an abundance of riches declared everything to be seemly italoe livetvetna soma) is a close paraphrase of Als III. 246-47 . but the subsequent statement that Alexander thought that nothing was forbidden to the warrior (ftlaiJe ell gall lUI hertnannenuni bannaoani represents an interesting alteration to the latin text, which says that he supposed 'nothing to be forbidd~n to a monarch' (illicilum nichil esse tvranno - Als II1,252). This detail. implyinG that the Old Norse translator had some reticcnce about criticisinbg absolute kings. is one small piece of evidence that the saga is more cornmittedly royalist in its affiliations tha.n 1\ the Alexandreis. Another such detail is the treatment of the eprsode in which Alexander has to have an arrow withdrawn from a dangerous wound but refuses to be held while the operation is carried out (AS 14210.12; Als IX.474-76):

E· . '11 . t konunl!r late hinda

Igi cr pat faert scair Alexander tl cents a -

~ ~ , . fri I t vcra

sec. coa hallda ser. pviat hans valid a iafnan rra st a .

Walter promptly casts doubt on whether it would real~y have been possible for Alexander to keep himself motionless III th~,e

. I' ucstlon

CirCUmstances (Als IX.477-78) and hence he cal s into q

t~e validity of Alexander's preceding statement .. b~t the Old ~o ,\' I • is{YI\'!OCS ~forc

, rse translator omits all mention of \ 'a ter s m to e':

sio if the main pas,acc

. ~nl Icant still, and more directly relevant to . . -

Und~ . . vith which the

er discussion here is the notable wanness \

If a I ' I • serlion that the

ns ator distances himself from \Va ter 5 as.

fri d hi , h . in a passage mcn-

en s ip of kings is not eternal. whic comes I

192

DAVID ASHURST

tioning the deaths of several men close to Alexander (AS 12931- 1303; Als IX.3-8):

Ipeire fen) gerez pat til tioenda at vinir konungsens lataz nockorir oc af hans volldom eptir bvi sem meistare Galterus visar til. en eigi kvedr hann scyrt a meo hveriorn atburdvm pat varo. en sva tecr hann til oroz. at peira dauoe sannade pat oc synde peim er eptir pa lifdo, at vinatta konunga eda annasa hofoengia kann brigd at verda,

Clearly the author of Alexanders saga was labouring here to s.ay what fidelity to his source required of him, but at the same time to cause as little offence as possible to kings 'or other leaders' (the last phrase being an addition to the Latin text, and one designed to deflect criticism away from kings in particular). If the saga was indeed commissioned by King Magnus Hakonarson, then these and the earlier remarks about the killings of courtiers are all the more pointed, and the author's circumspection is even more understandable, since King Hakon, the father of Magnus, ~ad found it expedient to eliminate several of his own men; most Important of these was Sktili jarI, who had been Hakon's mentor and who subsequently became his father-in-law _ hence also the g:andfather of King Magnus. According to Hdkonar saga, the ~Istory of Hakon commissioned by Magnus, Sktili was summarily ex~cuted by Hakon's men outside the gates of a monastery III WhIC~ he had taken sanctuary (Sturla Poroarson 1887,233- 34). This occurred in 1240. More than twenty years later, on the evidence of the same saga, the killing still rankled between the royal father and son, and Hakon was still trying to throw ~o~e of the responsibility for it onto his loyal supporters, since It IS alluded to in a speech that Hakon made to Magnus on the d~y. ~f the young man's consecration as king in 1261, and that cnticises those courtiers who were against the coronation (Sturla Poroarson 1887,319):

~k. voru pei: inir somu er mik eggjuou, ok lotm pessa, ~ eigr hafa vent umbotamenn mea mer ok inurn fyrrum yoru frrendum, sem Guo fyrirlati peim.

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

193

In view of these issues, a translation of the Alexandreis made for King Magnus could be expected to show precisely the qual-

ibi ith gard to the

ity that Alexanders saga does in fact exhi It WI re .

. k· namely a hesi-

deaths of courtiers at the hands of their own mg,

tant and respectful condemnation of such acts. .

It should be noted, however, that Alexanders saga and ItS source also contain at least one crumb of comfort for the exponents of realpolitik who believe that rulers such as Alexander and

H' f ti to time in order to

akon may need to act ruthlessly rom nne .

. . I· at the point

protect themselves and the state. As Darius IS ymg .

of death he murmurs to a Macedonian soldier a final speech in

. . k Al der the sole ruler

whIch he prays that the gods WIll rna e exan

of the world (see 3.2.1)· as a context for this crucial prayer the

, h bi ct of the treason

monarch's dying thoughts run much on t e su ~e b

. d h s Alexander to e

that has brought about hIS end, an e urge

. . . If ddi that it behoves a

VIgIlant against such treason himse ,a mg .,

k· . . b t also to 'expedIency

mg to pay attention not only to JustIce u .

. I VII 293) ExpedIency (nytsemd, corresponding to utilitas mAs . '. I (AS

. . . rt e to a WIse ru er

and jusnce, in fact, are of equal impo anc

10917-22; Als VII.290-93):

b·o hann vera varan vm Ber oc pat ifra minum oroum. at ec. 1 heve firir

sec. oc sia vandlega via slikum sVlkvrn. sern e~ tt kann at . ~ h· hasca er seJO

oroet. oe giallda varhuga VIv perm '. tsemoar at

ik rettlpttls oc ny

snva. en geta sva meoan hann n er 't'

hann vere hvartveoia mea iafnaoe-

d D der of his realm who,

As a vacillating and incompetent e en f it suppos-

f h . bId possessor 0 I S

urt ermore, was king of Ba y on an trustworthy

edly corrupting wealth, Darius may not app:ar a~. a. but against spokesman for the moral qualities of goo.d km~s IP, illdr maor

h· . . d scnbes him as mt

t IS It must be said that the narrative e himself displays

oc googiarnn (AS 2829; Als II.292) and t~at ~e h n he speaks

. fhIS reIgn w e

a deep concern for the ethical nature 0 17 0226. Als VII.l7 -58)

a long and tormented soliloquy (AS 101 ~~e la\~, has dispensed expressing the hope that he has respected. h icb and has

. . favounng ten ,

judgement without taking bnbes or

"en

I,

:1'

1I

!

\'

"

194

DAVID ASHURST

'loved justice as much as the nature of mankind possibly can, given its weakness' trettlete elscao sva sem nattura maniens rna bera fire sinom breyscleic - AS 10210-11; Als VII.43-46). It is therefore likely that the sentiments of Darius's death speech are to be accepted as wise and ethically valid advice on how a king should conduct himself as a fallen being in a fallen world, where justice and expediency may be in conflict. As for Alexander in this connection, it seems to me that he succeeds on the whole in meeting the simultaneous demands of justice and expediency in his dealings with Philotas, whose trial and execution occupy so much of Book VIII (see 3.2.2 above), although others may feel it is expediency that gains the upper hand in this episode. Concerning the other courtiers killed on Alexander's orders, who are specified in Als IX.4-5 as Clytus, Ermolaus and CaIlisthenes (the latter not actually named), we are not given enough infor-

. how

matron to form a judgement on how much expediency or .

much justice, if any, played a part in their deaths; but Walte~ s silence is ominous and is meant to be so. Nevertheless an earher comment on the death of Clytus should probably be accepted as an honest, albeit pointed, expression of the narrators' attitude towards this aspect of Alexander's career (AS 771-3 in the lacuna of AM 519a 4to; Als V. 78-79):

Enn betr etla eg seigir Meistare Gallterus at peigia yfi~ filedann mai huer laun pesse madr Clitus tok sinna velgiomtnga,

Like the Old Norse translator, Walter knows that Alexander's treatment of Clytus and the others cannot simply be ignored: h.e therefore mentions it in several places and gives it the disappro\al that it deserves. Apart from these brief mentions, however, the na ti d . her mat-

rra ive an Its accompanying commentary focus on ot.

ters that, for the most part, are more to Alexander's credit- , 5.4.3 Growing Tired of Human Nature. The state of mIlld in which everything is seemly and nothing is forbidden has ~ f . us" urther consequences beyond the killing of several prevIO 'f

honoured COurtiers, as the comments following the Battie 0 Issus go on to explain (AS 4531_464; Als III.253-57):

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

, I' h k m bar at Alexander

Oc bviat segia veror bQoe livft oc eitt, pa 0 p .

l-' . ~ • truoo vera hirnna

konungr kallaoiz son lovis. er heionir menn . I .

I k PVlat mctnaor ians

(luo. oc hann bauo oorom at kal a se sva.. .) . t

b h lciddiz at vera mar r .1 uck allt yvir mannlect cole. ba er onom

~. I' 'I t vcr: hcstr i iarnlczra luta.

CII1S. oc pone m s vert a vera 't' b

" . . b d ere humanity is con-

Thi, tOpIC of aspmng to a state eyon mi' he

nectcd to the theme of the killing of courtiers by the fact t 1.It .\I,C

. hi h lead to the genera s

treasonable tendencies of Philotas, w IC 3 ') ')

h· tatements (see .~.~

death after being confirmed by IS own 5 d

tulates Alexan er on

aboye), first come to light when he congra di .

. b th encourages se Ilion

being declared the son of Jupiter ut en d uch

~ I h t has to suffer un er s

by lamenting the lot of a peop eta Lik the earlier

an arro!!ant kino (AS 12018-22; Als VIlI.136-39). I ,e. t-

~ b , f the claim to divine paren

theme of killing courtiers, the tOpIC 0 I -hich refers

' . h tivc as a who e, w

age IS not fore grounded 111 t e narra 'If alludes to it

to it only briefly and infrequently: Walte~ hlm;~s 15,)10,15. see in his comments on Alexander in Als X.3) 1.-5h d th. t ;he s~n of

8 id t be astoms ea·

,-fA below); the Indians ~re Sal 0 35-40). a statement

jupiter has arrived in their country (Als 1~·307.12). the Scythian omitted by the Old Norse translator (see AS , \'1 xander (AS

, h he is tauntmg f c

emiSsary refers to the theme w en ne r " messenger

I 28!fl-ICJ; Als VIII.460-61; see 6.2.8); and Danu_s sIIY that the

h 0 ests sarcastlca ,

touches on the subject when e sueg , ' , nd a strong-

d ter intellIgence a .

gods,may have given Alexan er gr~a AS 59::r)~.j; Als IV.IOO-(3).

er spirit than human nature can have ( odh ad theme creates

t' to the g ea

The last-mentioned relerence hi t anslator endorse

problems for the logic that Walter and IS dered the state of

h d f riches encen

w en they say that abun ance 0 1:- divine parentage:

. d ptable to calm f

mind in which it see me accepravi k t Alexander a tcr

for although the messenger of Danus sr;~ s o(~\hen howe\'er, the capture of much booty at the Battle 0 ssu~ ned in' 2.2.2 and

. '. hare, as men110

Alexander gives up all hIS own S d seizes Babvlon

- before Alexan er . . • h

).4.2 above) his visit occurs . wealth. A furt er

b Ik of PersIan h

and thus acquires the vast u " h fact that in ot cr

problem associated with WaIter'S logic IS 1 e

&

195

\"

\,

'1"

.1_£Ot."

I

, ,

"J

196

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

197

parts of the narrati I .

ive severa people are said to be descended

from the gods and th . .

. ,e supposed descent IS not treated as beins

III any way problematical: Alexander when addressinz his

troops at quit I ..' e

e an ear y stage III their campaign says that they

are al~ descendants of Mars (AS 3421-22; Als n:450), a purely

rhetorical statem t f .

en ,0 course, but one that IS clearly not meant

to cause moral out . D' ..

d. rage, anus, wntmg formally to Alexander.

escr b hi

1 es rmself as jrennde guoanna (AS 1911; Als 11.20); and

even before AI d h

(CI exan er as left Greece the Theban poet Deades

eades) h '1 hi

ai S irn as ajspringr gooanna (AS 131; Als 1.328).

Subsequently in th .

e same speech, furthermore, Deades remInds

Alexander that I .

H severa gods were born in Thebes includIng

ercules er t; jr ,

pu ert a komenn konungr (AS 139; Als 1.337-38),

and thus he confi hat i d

h irms t at It was in any case taken for grante

t at Alexander w d

J . as escended from Jupiter since Hercules was

upiter's originally I ' . ki

morta son. In the context of pagan thin ang

such as this th .

h. ere IS no cogent reason why Alexander could not

imself lik H

h ,e ercules, have been fathered by the one 'whom

eathen men b I' d

. e reve to be god of the heavens'.

Despite these in . . . t

conSIstenCIeS and illogicalities in their trea -

ment of the sub' t' .

jec , It IS very clear that Walter and his Old Norse

translator wish t . .

. 0 view Alexander's claim from a ChristIan per-

spectIve and to .

. represent It as the most serious of his moral laps-

es. It IS the culrni . II' , h . mmatlOn of what the saga writer elsewhere ca ~

t e mallIfold lif f I ' '9.10

and 5 3 2 leo .ust (margJaldligt munuolifi; see AS 84-

b d '.' above), which drives a man to desire what should not

e eSlred In thi . d

. .' IS particular case the desire driving Alexan er

IS specified t:>

I as metnaor, which elsewhere in the narrative the

g ossator of AM 519 . .' h

all' a 4to gives as the equivalent of AmblCiO. t e

egoncal represe t . . d

natIOn of ambition depicted as a girl atten -

ant on the zodd V' '. 5/9

17v; AS 699-10• ess rctoria III her palace on the Tiber (AM ~

I ' Als IV.408-1 0)' hence metnaor hans gek alit .\1'1

mann eet eole /,' he

m . . . pa er honom leiddi: at vera maor at ems. as I

am quotatIOn b· f re

Alex d' a ove puts It. Viewed in this light, there 0 '

I an er s claim to be the son of Jupiter must be seen as the

c earest sympto f ·S

m 0 the character trait that, we may suspect, I

also symbolised - much more equivocally - by Alexander's other attempt to go beyond the human realm, namely his wish to attack 'the other world' of the southern hemisphere, (See 7.4 and 8.3 below for discussions of this highly ambiguous topic).

There are ambiguities present, however, in even this apparently forthright Christian condemnation of Alexander's claim to be a god-begotten hero, for the Old Norse translator's final remark, that Alexander potte litils vert at vera hestr iarolegra luta, strongly suggests the Christian doctrine of contetnptus mundi, It also suggests the attitude of Satan, whose 'overweening ambition' ioftnetnaor) before his fall was such that hann villde iafnluitt sitia scaparanum (AS 14620-21; Ais X.80-SI); but there is a crucial difference between Satan and Alexander, which is that Satan was created perfect in a perfect place and had. no cause for dissatisfaction, whereas Alexander is a fallen man III a fallen world where contemptus mundi is an appropriate response. Every person in the world, according to Christian doctrine, ~ust be dissatisfied with the world and must desire to go beyond It to the better place of 'the life to come'; every human being must despise sinful human nature and must wish to transcend it; and everyone in the Christian era is called to accept as a divine gift the state of grace in which it is possible to say 'Now are we the sons of God' tNunc filii Dei sumus - BS. 1 John 3:2. trans. AV). As a pagan living before the time of Christ. Alexander docs not h . . be me a world-

av e the understanding or the opportUnIty to co .'

transcending son of God in this Christian sense, and so hiS wls.h

to be recognised as such a person on his own pagan term" IS L ss and therefore lJ\Jund to be erroneous based on presumptuousne,

, h wever

CUlpable. Nevertheless Alexander shows an awareness. 0 .

distorted. that there is 'a fundamental problem attache.d to ~Illg

h . f nhly rhincs IS not

urnan, and that even to be the highest 0 ea _.. .:

h blem must mevi-

actually good enouzh. His solution to t e pro .

t bl b .' I'~ iust as the plan to

a y seem like a parody of the ChnstJan I e. J - f h

. I inc pages 0 t e

attack Hell of which he is accused III the c 051 - . d be

, d woul a

narrative (see 8.3.1-2 below), if true and acte, upon". one could

parody of Christ's redemptive work: but for parody

\

i'

198

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

199

also read 'symbol', so that Alexander could be said, on the one h~nd, to symbolise the plight of mankind that yearns for union ':Ith God in eternity and, on the other, to prefigure the Christian life and the divine intervention that makes it possible.P

Attentive medieval audiences of Alexanders saga, it seems to ~e. would have been alive to the religious implications set out In the ~revious paragraph because they were used to thinking allegorically and because the Old Norse translator has prompted th~ sequence of thought by his use of the term jaroligar h/utir. ~vlth ':hich the entire passage of moral commentary ends. Thcre IS a SImpler and more immediate interpretation of the closing remarks, however, with which I too shall conclude. It is the obvious and superficial one which the Old Norse translator himself prepares the audience for by saying that it is necessary to state both that which is pleasant and that which is unpleasant (broe livft oc leitt - no equivalent in the source, Als III.253-5il concerning Alexander. The pleasant facts are those that are stated again and again throughout the saga and that form the bulk of the narrative: Alexander was a matchless military leader who n~ver lost a battle; he himself was deadly in one-to-one comb3!:

I11S courage never failed him even in the face of imminent death: he bore pai t df . but

. ,111 S ea lastly; he was grim towards his enerrucs .

rnercifu] towards those who gave him their true loyalty: he W3S generous almost to a fault: he loved fame far more than gold: an.d. above all. he succeeded. The unpleasant facts. which arc briefly ti d I '

men lone here and there. are that he was not a wa).

ch~ste. that he dealt ruthlessly with old friends when he thought ~helr loyalty was in question. and above all that he was not 531' ISfi:d with being a mere man but believed himself the son of Jupiter The o it f d the

.' gravi y 0 the last charze may well far excee

\\'eloht of the ,{; b d i rami-

fi ~ saga s lew statements relating to it. an Its

Ic~tlOns may well dwarf the space that it is allotted; but even so It remains merely part of a wider-ran <ring moral judgement. merely one . b ~ h th31 _____ repugnant Idea to set alongside many ot ers

55 For "discussions of Alexander as a 'type' of Christ, see sections 4.·U ;1r.J S.L.

are attractive. And the Old Norse translator's final clause, taken at face value in all simplicity, brings us back to the topic with \\ hich this chapter opened, namely the mystery of how so much could be achieved by a pagan who was not by any means beyond n:proach: for though the main reproach against Alexander is that he considered it of little worth to be the highest of earthly things, the affirmation of his glory and achievement is that he was indeed the highest in all the world.

5.5 C onclusions

The two short passages of moral commentary that follow the accounts of the Battle of Issus and the entry into Babylon do not. in fact. deal directly with the ethics of empire but with the moral dangers that empire and its attendant wealth put in the way of Alexander'S personal righteousness. It must be undcrstood, although it is not stated in either the Alexandreis or Alexonder.s sa~a. that the transgressions of which Alexander is guilty, such as they are, are notpresented as the inevitable result of c~pi.rc: nOWhere is it implied that power corrupts, or that a Chm~I;~n emperor would necessarily commit the same offcnce .. : but It .1" cenainly implied that the conditions of empirc put Alexander JI1 the way of temptations that he could and should have ovcrcomc.

n· . . .. , d t all and

11< •• mdeed, is the main reason why he IS cntrcrsc a ,

"h' h . . . d h rply 'or it could have

.. :- t e cnucisms are expresse so sa s : I'

hcen hoped that so great a man would have done ~((er.

E .. ' . t which thcv funcven on the levels of personal cnncrsrn a .' .

! h I Thi . for two baste rea"on~.

Ion. t e passages are problematica . IS IS .

first. they condemn Alexander in terms that initially ~trlkc one as , - . be mbieuous or <.elf·

GelmIte and emphatic but that tum out to a - .

. .' that thev contam arc

COntradictory; and secondly the CritiCISmS .' .

f h rpuye as a \\ hole.

not well supported by the evidence 0 t e na u •

d . first entn' 1010

In the passage that follows Alexan er s .' •

Babylon, the greatest ambigUity or self-contradlctJ~n Ch?nccmIU~

\\' -'d t ndure m I'> na

altcr's implication that Alexander di ~~ c 'J that the

ral disposition towards virtue; linked 35 It IS to the I ca

-------------- •• '151.1"101'11II'11I1'I"lnl.".t.'If'I""Ir:.tlrlffltl"tIYtl""I,.n.r'I'""i"' •• I""I'IW·'I"I",·.tiftl' '?'I'tl'IWiiiflr'iilftii'ii'll">tI'"''I'''i'hii'itli/"IX*ltl'·tl't.fiir •• "'I\:Ili1tr'i"'.fl""'ltl" 'tt'tI'WI'I!IlIII' "Ir ITI'II7.; , ... ", !$"'i~

200

DAVID ASHURST

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE 201

nations of the world might not have sought Alexander as their

ruler this i li ti .

, mp rca Ion IS spunous because the nations do in fact

seek ~im as king (5.2.2). The saga writer preserves Walter's potentIally misleading tum of phrase in this connection but makes a more humane judgement of Alexander's conduct in Babylon by interpreting the moral issue as a matter of his failing to ac~ieve perfection i alia staoi (5.3.1); thus he treats Alexandc;

as neither a m t

ons er nor a paragon but as a real man.

Both .

wnters are deeply concerned about the loss of Alex-

ander' h . .

· s c astity In Babylon; but there is another ambiguity

Illvolved in th . h

err statements concerning this matter, for bot

authors have ch . ) · osen to use phrases WhICh could (but need not

Imply that Alexander's sexual misconduct involved a permanent I~ss ~f moral fibre (5.2.4 and 5.3.2). Much the same implication IS prese t i h h

· n In t e sorter passage of criticism that takes as

ItS starting p . t AI' . d

om exander s treatment of Darius's wife an

~other after the Battle of Issus and that glances forward to the

ISsues raised' hI' h

_ III t e onger piece (5.4.1); but the remainder of t e

narratIve serves t 1 if .' .

o c an y the fact that the Babylonian lapse was

merely temp d I . orary an that Alexander recovered his self-contra

III sexual matters (5.1.2 and 5.4.1).

The Old Norse translator lays particular emphasis on the role of money as th ~ 1) TI . .' e root of the evil committed in Babylon (5 . s.: '

. ~IS consIderation is anticipated in the shorter passage, where It IS said that F ~ h n

h ,< ortuna began to spoil Alexander's nature w e

e acqUIred great wealth; but the validity of this statement is

undercut b th '

edl y e eVIdence of the narrative, which shows repeat-

h Y that wealth has little hold over Alexander (5.4.2), As to the

Sorter pas '

of hi s~ge s condemnation of Alexander for killing SO~lI!

IS CourtIers, it is ultimately tempered by Darius's dylll&

Words about th ' 'e

d ,e need for a king to pay equal attention to JustlC

an expedlenc hi h . I' '3-

, y, W IC certaInly have a bearinz on the e Imlll

non of Phil e . I'

desni Iotas, at least, and which must be taken serIOUS)

espIte D ' , "

claim to b:rms sown faili?gs (5.4,2), In addition,. ~I~xandep

, Ch" the Son of Jupiter, which is strongly cntIclsed from a nsnan persp ti " t con-

ec rve and IS Interpreted as an arrogan

tempt for human nature, does not square well with the earlier treatment of Alexander and others as being descended from the gods (5.4.3). Even in making his criticism on this crucial point, furthermore, the Old Norse translator prompts the thought that Alexander, as the supposed son of Jupiter, can be seen as a pagan forerunner of the Christian who is a son of God and who despises the world (5.4.3).

All of this raises the questions of why such radical cond.emnation of Alexander's moral conduct is dealt with in such ambiguous or even misleading terms, and why it is crowded into such sh,ort passages that are at odds with the bulk of the narrative, being ,upplemented in the later stages of the work only by the speech of the Scythian emissary, who does not speak for the authors (see chapter 6), and by the passages of commentary in the last book (discussed in chapter 8), Part of the answer, hinted at in the ~p~ning paragraph of these Conclusions, surely lies in the a~blgUlty of Alexander himself who was the highest of earthly things. as th 0' h rtook of the

e ld Norse translator says (5.4.3), but w 0 pa

fallen nature of the world' the criticisms are therefore trenchant because Alexander behaved like a fallen man despite his greatness, but they partially evaporate under scrutiny for much the 'arne reason, namely that he was the greatest of fallen m~n, The h ' ' , . ssage: whJist the

r\:\'lly of these passages also has Its 0\\ n me ' "

. ,~ , bo h th posiuve and the

narrators have an obligation to declare t e " . 1

ne ' ' b ) liv(r oc lellf - 5.4 .. ).

,-gatlve (or, as the saga writer puts It. (I( e J' , ' •

h '. rhincs In a nar-

t ey have kept their discussions of the negatn e e h

, k be demted to t c

row compass so that the bulk of their wor . can . '

. , , . h uld scarceiv have

P0Sltlve, Such is their emphasis. It IS one t at co ' . 'h

k" 'be 'marlly about t c

L'CCn appropnate if their narratives had en pn . ,

f hat the narrat» es arc

morals of Alexander as a person; the act t .. f '1-

, .. t Alexander s al

)0 deeply concerned with ethics and )et trea h thors'

, , , indi tion that t e au

mgs In this way is therefore a strong 111 rca hi"

h Alexander turns

real concern at least up to the moment w en '. . ta-

• . a paslu .. 'e prcc.en a

~ltention beyond the world (see chapter 7). IS,S irn rfectionr,

!Jon of the imperial theme to which Alexander pe

arc strictly incidental.

r----------------------------------------- --------------------

THE ETHICS OF EMPIRE

203

CHAPTER 6

but follows the structure of the speech as set down in Curt .• often using the very same words. In all three versions the outline is as follows: insults relating to Alexander's greed and insatiability lAS 12612-22; Als VIII.374-90; Curt. VII.viii.12-13); the inevitahility of death. which comes even to the great and ends their achievements (AS 12622-29; Als VIII.391-403; Curt. VII. viii.l-l- 15): the innocence and freedom of the Scythians (AS 1262'1-127R; .\/s VIII.404-15; Curt. VII. viii.16); description of the Scythian economy and armaments (AS 1278-12; Als VIII.416-21; Curt. VII. \iii.17-18); second diatribe against Alexander'S greed and the folly of wealth. greatly compressed in the saga (AS 12712-17; Als \'111.422-31; Curt. VII. viii.19-20); warnings against the difficulty and pointlessness of overcoming Scythia. or of trying to keep all nations in subjection at once (AS 12718_1286; Als VIII.432-47; Cun, VII.viii.21-23); description of Fortuna, with a warning to hold on to her (AS 1286-16; Ais VIII.448-59; Curt. VII.viii.24-25); and sarcasm about Alexander's claim to godhead. leading to an o~-~~er of true friendship (AS 12816-31; Als VIII.460-76; Curt. VII. \111.26-30).

In the following discussion. since it consists largely of clo ... e :malysis of this single passage. I shall regularly give refere~ce .. 10 the . - I - . C d "hene\'er I comlder c ongina as It appears 111 urt .• an w

Ihem to be illuminating I shall draw comparisons and cont;a<,t'i betw C . , h d d those bv \\alter

een urnus s version. on the one an • an ".. d

and the Old Norse translator on the other. These references an comparisons. however should not be taken to imply that the ~aga

'.t, ' , hi t ian's work,

rner had first-hand knowledge of the Roman IS on '

6 I ") I portion of the

, ,"- Parallels with Iceland. The centra .

"n.> h . hi with rea"ons

I~ec constitutes a description of the Scyt lans. "

wh - - ihev are \ en

, Y It would be pointless to conquer them. smce. -'

n.rv,. • hev uld scatter Into

1,,'Ur. and danzerous to attack them. Slllce t e) \'0 rf

h e - 'J) wa are.

t ie Wastelands of their country and engage 111 guem a , h t In th ' . . . h d t ils from It. t a

e saga It IS this description. or rat er e a: ' f h

su the sItuatIOn 0 t e

ggests parallels are beinz drawn between

S . e "h n the" were . c) thlans and that of the Icelanders at the time \\ e,' I d r . . . k' as their 0\ cr or - C\lsttng pressure to accept the Norwegian 'Ing

The Voice of Freedom

6.1 An Icelandic Voice?

?1. ~ Introduction. The closing sequence of Alexanders saga. It will be remembered from the discussion in 1.2.3 above. contains what may be a small contribution to the thirteenth-century debate about Icelandic independence from the Norwegilll crown. irrespective of whether the saga was written at a time When Icelandic independence was still actual or had become a memory. I now tum to what can be read as a larger essay on t?e same topic, and on the general issue of freedom from lmperial domination, the episode of the Scythian emissary's visit to Alexander at the end of Book VIII. .

Jon Helgason, in the Introduction to his facsimile edition at the saga (AM 519a, xxviii), alludes to this matter when he sa~~ that it would be difficult to imagine an Icelander working on the ~cythian's speech, in the mid-thirteenth century. 'without fedII1g it as an Icelandic contribution to a current debate'. But what is the drift of that contribution? Certainly the emissary takes.the moral high ground on which he makes a fundamentallY ethl~JI defence of his people's right to their freedom, and from whIch he attacks what he sees as the moral errors of Alexander'S imperial career; but is there reason to believe that his vieWS can, be equated with h h cra_wnter

1 t ose of the saga-writer? Or does t e sa=

take si d . h . . ?

I. es WIt Alexander against his Scythian cntIc. _

As It stands in the Old Norse text, the Scythian's speech p:ll'~ aphrases and compresses but retains the overall structure of th~ oration as it appears in Walter's version, which itself abridge,

Você também pode gostar