Al-Mubaššir ibn Fātik and Alexander (Prof. Cottrell)

al-Mubaššir ibn Fātik’s Choicest Maxims and Best Sayings (Muḫtār alḤikam wa Maḥāsin al-kilam) on the life of Alexander the Great at the end of the nineteenth century, not much has been made of this important source of information on the Arabic transmission of the Alexander Romance, which became wrongly attributed on a medieval manuscript and has been known from then on as the Pseudo-Callisthenes ( B. Meissner, “Mubašširs Aḫbâr el-Iskender,” ZDMG 49, 1895, pp. 583-627. Rudolf Macuch, “Pseudo-Callisthenes Orientalis and the Problem of Ḏu l-qarnain,” in GraecoArabica, 4, 1991, 223-264 was the only one to point to some striking parallels between Ibn Fātik and the Syriac and Persian versions. F. Doufikar-Aerts, Alexander Magnus Arabicus. Zeven eeuwen Arabische Alexandertraditie: van Pseudo-Callisthenes tot Ṣūrī, PhD Dissert. Leiden, Leiden University Press 2003; English tr. Alexander Magnus Arabicus: A Survey Of The Alexander Tradition Through Seven Centuries: From PseudoCallisthenes To Ṣūrī, Leuven, Peeters 2010). Ibn Fātik preserves, among the Arabic versions, one that comes close to the lost α version of the Romance, although it is very much abbreviated, starts with Philip’s death and contains no allusion to the Nectanebo episode (F. Rosenthal, “Al-Mubashshir Ibn Fātik: Prolegomena to an Abortive Edition, ” in Oriens 13, 1960-1961, pp. 132-158).

The α version of the Alexander Romance is lost, apart from a highly faulty eleventh-century Greek manuscript known as manuscript A, which has been corrected and reconstructed with the help of the longer β and γ versions, and enriched with additions and corrections derived from the retroversion of the Latin version by Julius Valerius, also thought to be based on the α version, as well as interpolations derived from a retroversion of the Armenian text (C. Jouanno, Naissance et Métamorphoses du Roman d’Alexandre, Paris 2002, p. 13).

One of the characteristics of α is the lack of any Christian element. This is true also of the Latin version of the Romance written by Julius Valerius ca 360-380, of the anonymous Armenian version and to some degree also of the Arabic version preserved by Ibn Fātik, although it has a strong monotheist inclination (J.-P. Callu (ed. and tr.), Julius Valère: Roman d’Alexandre,Turnhout, Brepols, 2010; L. Canfora, Histoire de la littérature grecque à l’époque hellénistique, Paris 2004, p. 97, doubts the attribution to Julius Valerius ; A.M. Wolohojian, The Romance of Alexander the Great by Pseudo-Callisthenes, New York-London, Columbia University Press, 1969. The Armenian translation is dated from the second half of the 5th c., see R. Schmitt, “An Iranist’s remarks on the Armenian version of the Alexander Romance,” in R. Bianca Finazzi and A. Valvo (eds.), La diffusione dell’eredità classica nell’età tardoantica e medievale. Il “Romanzo di Alesandro” e altri scritti. Atti del Seminario internazionale di studio (Roma-Napoli, 25-27/9/1997), Alessandria 1998, pp. 257-266. On the monotheist inclination, see G. Fowden, “Pseudo-Aristotelian Politics and Theology in Universal Islam,” in S.M.R. Darbandi and A. Zournatzi (eds.), Ancient Greece and ancient Iran: Cross-cultural encounters. 1st International Conference, Athens, 11-13 November 2006, pp. 65-81, esp. pp. 68-69). The Syriac version, also considered to be close to the α version (A. Ausfeld, Der Griechische Alexanderroman, Leipzig, Teubner,1907, pp. 17-23), has surprisingly few Christian references, an extremly rare feature for a Syriac text. The most salient of these are the Gog and Magog episode and an allusion to the patriarch Joseph as being equivalent to the Egyptian god Serapis.

The Syriac text shows several layers (the latest one being explanatory glosses giving equivalents in Neo-Persian) and may very well be a composite text, containing interpolations by translators and copyists. Ibn Fātik’s Arabic version did also connect with the Syriac cultural realm at some stage, since one of the earliest preserved manuscripts of The Choicest Maxims, MS Berlin Or. 785 Quarto, probably copied in the 13th c., stems from Mar Mattai monastery in Mosul and has a bilingual Syriac-Arabic seal on its first folio and a Syriac foliotation. Other signs of the diffusion of a text close to the Syriac version are the parallels between the Syriac version and a tenthcentury Latin version by Leo Archipresbyter, who travelled from Naples to Constantinople in 950 and was able to purchase a Greek manuscript of the Alexander Romance which he translated into Latin under the title Nativitas et Victoria, later known as Historia de preliis Alexandri Magni. The parallels resulted in the suggestion by Ausfeld of the existence of a *δ version (Budge, p. xl, considered that the Syriac text may be dated as early as the seventh century while W. Wright thought it may belong to the tenth century and was made on an Arabic original (loc. cit.). Rudolf Macuch, “Pseudo-Callisthenes Orientalis and the Problem of Ḏu l-qarnain,” in Graeco-Arabica, 4, 1991, pp. 232-236 supported Nöldeke’s theory of a Middle-Persian original behind the Syriac. Both D. S. Margoliouth’s review of Budge’s edition and translation in The Classical Review, 4, 1890, pp. 259-261, and C. Ciancaglini, “Gli antecedenti del Romanzo siriaco di Alessandro,” in R. Bianca Finazzi and A. Valvo (eds.), La diffusione dell’eredità classica nell’età tardoantica e medievale. Il “Romanzo di Alesandro” e altri scritti. Atti del Seminario internazionale di studio (Roma-Napoli, 25-27/9/1997), Alessandria 1998, p. 55-93 show the late Persian background of the copyists (as already proposed by S. Gero, see R. Macuch, op. cit., p. 235, n. 40). Frye has refuted some of Nöldeke’s Beiträge zur Geschichte des Alexanderromans (= Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademi der Wissenschaften 38/V), Wien 1890, arguments for the existence of a Middle Persian version, see R. Frye, “Two Iranian Notes,” in Papers in honour of Professsor Mary Boyce (Acta Iranica 24, Hommages et Opera Minora X), Leiden 1985, pp. 185-190).

1. To add to Frye’s doubts on Nöldeke’s argument on the R/L phoneme confusion, see P. Muradyan, “La Lezione Kark’edovn/K’ałkedon nelle fonti Armene altomedievali,”in R. Bianca Finazzi and A. Valvo (eds.), La diffusione dell’eredità classica nell’età tardoantica e medievale. Il “Romanzo di Alesandro” e altri scritti. Atti del Seminario internazionale di studio (Roma-Napoli, 25-27/9/1997), Alessandria 1998, pp. 189-195). As some of these parallels are shared also by the abbreviated version preserved in Ibn Fātik, Doufikar-Aerts was tempted to consider that Ibn Fātik’s version drew upon the Syriac as we know it. Along with the Armenian and the Syriac versions, this Arabic version is therefore of primary importance for our understanding of the extremely corrupt α tradition. It is a close contemporary of the Greek A manuscript, which belongs to the 10th-11th c. while Ibn Fātik wrote the Choicest Maxims in 1048-1049.
2. A note on the anthroponyms in al-Mubaššir ibn Fātik’s Arabic version
3. The transliterations of the Greek names in Ibn Fātik’s chapter do not point to the Syriac text as being the model used for the Arabic translation. Amyntas, Philip’s father, has been correctly preserved in Arabic as Aminṭas, but we find no mention of him in the Syriac text, something due to the fact the Syriac starts with the fantastic Nectanebo episode and does not delve into historical information on the Macedonian dynasty. Philip is consistently called Fīlifūs in Syriac, while he is named Fīlībūs in Arabic. Alexander is Aleksandrūs throughout the Syriac, while he is al-Iskandar in Arabic. Darius (= Darius III) is not Dariyūš (which reflects the Persian pronunciation and is attested in al-Mas‘ūdī for example), as in Syriac, but the form Dārā, or Dārā ibn Dārā (“Darius son of Darius”) is used throughout the Arabic text.

1. The presents of the Chinese king
2. The Chinese episode depicts the (fictional) pacific conquest of China by Alexander, just after his victory over Poros and his encounter with the Brahmans. It appears in the Syriac (pp. 109-113 of Budge’s translation) and Ethiopic (pp. 172-180 of Budge’s translation) versions as well as in the Persian Shahnamah (Abolqasem Ferdowsi, Shahnameh. The Persian Book of Kings, New York, 2006, tr. D. Davis, pp. 519-521) and in the early Arabic extracts gathered under the name of ‘Umara ibn Zayd (MS London, Brit. Lib. 8691, fol. 50b-53a) (Budge, The History of Alexander the Great, being the Syriac version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1889, p. 109, n.4). The focus of the Arabic version used by Ibn Fātik, which it shares with the one ascribed to ‘Umara ibn Zayd, is to present Alexander as a civilizing hero and a monotheist (Doufikar-Aerts, AMA (English), p. 41, p. 84). The trace of an insertion of the episode is made clear by the fact that in Syriac, Alexander fights a dragon just before arriving at the boundaries of China, while in the Arabic version by ‘Umara the fight against the dragon comes right after the Chinese episode, on the way back to Merv in Central Asia. These insertions (the dragon episode and the visit to China) are non-extant in Greek. They appear in the oriental versions at the place where we should find Alexander’s Letter to Aristotle on his expedition to India (the Epistola ad Aristotelem), where Alexander describes to his teacher the wonders he has seen in India. The letter in question, dealing with mirabilia but mentioning several episodes that we can read at length in the narrative versions, seems to have been the epistolary version of some episodes, belonging to a core epistolary novel, as Merkelbach supposed it for other segments of the novel.

The Arabic seems to be based on a longer, more detailed version, at least for the list of presents, while the narration of events is plainly abbreviated. Ibn Fātik’s version alludes to letters that seems to have been skipped, and we can find an allusion to a letter also in ‘Umara, which we will quote below after the table comparing the Syriac and the Arabic paragraph. The Syriac story has Alexander coming in disguise to the court of the Chinese king, that is, using a device also present in the Pseudo-Callisthenes novel (II.7), where this anonymous visit is made to Darius at Persepolis. Another visit in disguise (this time to Porus!), is preserved only in Armenian and mentioned as well in Alexander’s Letter to Aristotle on his expedition to India, §§ 33-34.

1. Conclusion
2. There is no doubt that the foundation myth was still known in the 6th-7th c., when the earliest Syriac versions of the Alexander Romance were probably composed (R. Duval, Histoire politique, religieuse et littéraire d’Edesse jusqu’à la première croisade, Paris 1892, p. 22-23. J. B. Segal, Edessa, the Blessed City, Oxford, 1970 (repr. Piscataway, 2001), p. 9-10. Edessa and Armenia were allied against the Romans in the second half of the 1st c. BC, see H.J.W. Drijvers, Cults and Beliefs at Edessa, Leiden, 1980, p. 11). Michael the Syrian, writing in the 12th century, but drawing from older sources, mentions the Macedonian establishment and the derivation of the name (Michel le Syrien, Chronique, trad. J.-B. Chabot, Paris,, 1899, t. I, p. 119). But the Old Syriac version, which probably underlies some of the Arabic, Persian, and Syriac versions we have, is lost. There is no reason, however, why the medieval Syriacs could not have used the numerous Syriac, Arabic and Persian versions in circulation, not to mention the Armenian (more than seventy manuscripts are still known today), which were certainly also available to them, as well as some Greek and Latin versions. Thus a concrete analysis of the Syriac text we possess today is a desideratum before any history of the transmission can be offered. The origin of the expression ‘The Two-Horned’ (dhū al-qarnayn) is a complex one.

As often with Eastern mythology, several folk-tales and historical events may have aggregated (Rudolf Macuch, “Pseudo-Callisthenes Orientalis and the Problem of Ḏu l-qarnain,” in Graeco-Arabica, 4, 1991, 223-264, esp. p. 237; p. 241-242; p. 247; pp. 251-252; p. 263 shows that the nickname was first applied to Cyrus II (pp. 252-257)). An etymology which claims that dhū alqarnayn did not mean ‘two horns’ but ‘two braids’ and was first given as a nickname to a Parthian king appears in an important but neglected text by the tenth-century Christian Syrian historian Agapius (Maḥbūb of Manbīj) where Samiros, the victor of the Parthian king Kisrumis, makes a crown from the scalp of his victim and is therefore called “With the two braids” which the author gives as equivalent to Greek ‘diokratis’ although the word does not appear in our modern lexicons.