Church Fathers and the Reception of Alexander the Great (Prof. Peltonen)

Jerome’s work provides an idealized picture of Hilarion—anchorite and saint. Even though Alexander was not the subject of the work, it is interesting how Jerome connects together Classical and Jewish literary tradition on Alexander the Great. The anecdote of Alexander weeping at the grave of Achilles was commonplace in the Classical Greco-Roman literature appearing in Cicero, Plutarch, Arrian and the Historia Augusta ( Cic. Arch. 24; Plut. Alex. 15.4; Arr. An. i.12. 1–2. Hist. Aug. Prob. 1–2. Alan Cameron, The Last Pagans of Rome (Oxford University Press, 2013), 761–770).

Jerome’s passage shows that early Christian writers knew of both the Classical and Jewish traditions of Alexander and that they also wrote about the themes derived from the previous literature.

The Critical Image of the King and the Early Christian Apologists

When the early Christian authors wrote about Alexander they referred to one of the most often-cited and iconic figures in Classical literature. Diana Spencer aptly writes that “Roman culture is saturated with themes that scream ‘Alexander’” ( Diana Spencer, “Roman Alexanders: Epistemology and Identity”, in Alexander the Great: A New History, ed. Waldemar Heckel et al. (Chichester: Blackwell, 2009), 252). In the Classical world the reception of Alexander varied from the heroic conqueror and philosopher-king to the bloodthirsty tyrant whose reign brought destruction and pain to the whole inhabited world (Cf. Plut. Mor. 335f; Sen. Clem. 1.25.1). The first idealizing portraits of the king were produced already in the early Hellenistic periods (by Callisthenes and Ptolemy), and the idealizing and heroic portrait can be read from the Greek and Roman writers of Second Sophistic like Plutarch, Dion Chrysostom and Arrian. In the very earliest Christian literature we can distinguish how the critical portraits of the king became popular in the way the apologists wrote about Alexander. One of the first examples of this which we encounter is in Tatian’s (120–180) Address to the Greeks(Oratio ad Graecos), which connects the critical portrait of Alexander’s career to the critique of Aristotle and ‘pagan’ philosophy.

1. For the idealizing portrait of Alexander in Callisthenes, see: Diana Spencer, The Roman Alexander (University of Exeter Press, 2002), 5–9; Paul Cartledge, Alexander the Great— The Hunt for a New Past, (Pan Books, 2004), 247–249. For the reception of Alexander in the Greek writers of the Second Sophistic, see Sulochana Asirvatham,“Classicism and Romanitas in Plutarch’s De Alexandri Fortuna aut Virtute”, American Journal of Philology 126. (2005), 107–125. Asirvatham, Sulochana, “His Son’s Father? Philip in the Second Sophistic”, in Philip ii and Alexander the Great: father and son, lives and afterlives, ed. Elizabeth Carney and Daniel Ogden (Oxford University Press 2010), 193–205.
2. Tatian was not the only early Christian writer exploiting the previous critical Latin portraits of the king in their argumentation. In his Apology, Tertullian (ca. 155–ca. 220) writes a couple of decades after Tatian about the relationship between Alexander and Aristotle: “The same Aristotle’s shameful tutorship of Alexander is equivalent to flattery” (Tert. Apol. 46.15). In his On the Mantle(De Pallio), Tertullian refers to the theme of Alexander’s orientalism in terms of how the king changed his Macedonian dress to Persian attire.

In Clement of Alexandria’s (ca. 150 and 211–216ad) Exhortation to the Greeks (Protrepticus) the tradition of Alexander’s divinity is presented as a part of the critique of the traditional polytheistic religion (Hubertus R. Drobner, The Fathers of the Church—A Comprehensive Introduction, (transl. Schatzmann) (Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 133–134). Clement criticizes the polytheistic religion through stories of deified mortal men. Through this reference, Clement was trying to show the absurdity of traditional religion and to stress that the king who died suddenly in Babylon was not a true god.

1. The Reproached Alexander of the Fourth Century Fathers
2. The negative reception of Alexander did not disappear in the texts of the fourth and early fifth century Fathers. In Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 265–340ad), Augustine (354–430ad) and Orosius we can distinguish how the Christian writers of the fourth and early fifth century ad could praise the Christian present by the old ‘hostile’ reception of Alexander. In their works the critical image of the king, or the tradition of comparatio Alexandri, were connected with their present rhetorical interests and anti-pagan agenda. Eusebius’ Life of Constantine (Vita Constantini) connects the negative presentation of Alexander through a comparatio Alexandri. Like Tatian and Tertullian Eusebius is building up a negative portrait of Alexander.

The hostile reception of Alexander as the bloodthirsty and unjust tyrant shows how the fourth century fathers borrowed the critical portraits of Classical literature. The harshly rhetorical attacks against the fame of Alexander was not the invention of Christian writers who followed the lines of rhetoric once used in the Latin literary tradition. The same anecdotes, literary motifs and phrases were recycled but the target of the critical portrait of Alexander was different. In this representation, Alexander was a pagan king symbolizing pagan culture and its prestige, which the Christian writers wanted to prove as a secondary and inferior.

Imitatio Alexandri and the Positive Image of Alexander

The positive portrait of the king presented as a good monarch, previously stressed in the Greek and Roman texts, can be found within the works of many early Christian writers. For example Jerome wrote about his relationship with Alexander and Scipio (Jer. C. Ruf. 3. 40). In addition, Jerome writes about his desire to imitate Alexander’s and Scipio’s deeds and about his admiration. Even though the passage is part of the author’s intention to show his knowledge of Classical tradition, works of Plato and Pythagoras, it indicates that the early Christian writers knew and even shared positive views about Alexander and his campaigns. In the Roman world, the imitatio Alexandri was a widely known cultural phenomena. Hellenistic kings, Roman warlords and emperors were famous for their desire for imitating the Macedonian, or at least using the images of the king for their own political ends (Cf. Jacob Isager, “Alexander the Great in Roman Literature from Pompey to Vespasian”, in Alexander the Great—Reality and Myth, ed. Jesper Carlsen, (analecta romana instituti danici Supplementum xx, 1992), 75–85. Alexander Meeus, “Alexander’s Image in the Age of the Sucessors”, in Alexander the Great: A New History, ed. Waldemar Heckel et al. (Chichester: Blackwell, 2009), 235–250; see Daniel Hengst, “Alexander and Rome”, in Emperors and Historiography—Collected Essays on the Literature of the Roman Empire ed. Diederik Burgersdijk et al. Hengst (Brill, 2009), 68–84. Diana Spencer, The Roman Alexander (University of Exeter Press, 2002), 15–31. Diana Spencer, “Roman Alexanders: Epistemology and Identity”, in Alexander the Great: A New History, ed. Waldemar Heckel et al. (Chichester: Blackwell, 2009), 253–267).

1. Jerome is far from the only early Christian writer referring to imitatio Alexandri and writing about Alexander as a positive example. Even in several letters of the Eastern Church Fathers the Macedonian king was used as a positive exemplum. In his letter to Sophronius, who was Magister officium (Master of the offices), Basil of Caesarea (330–379ad) refers to the positive tradition on Alexander and his physician Philip.
2. Also, the younger brother of Basil and bishop, Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 330– 395ad), exploits the positive tradition of Alexander in a letter of recommendation to his friend Antiochus. Gregory introduces Alexander in his letter as a prototype of ideal friendship. According to Gregory, wise men do not primarily admire the king because of his victories over the Persians and Indians, but “for his saying that his treasure was in his friends” (Greg. Nyss. Epist. 8.1.5).

Gregory writes about those who admire Alexander in a positive way and calls Alexander’s achievements marvels (θαῦμα). In addition he even connects himself implicitly amongst that group.

Basil of Caesarea, in his Address to Young Men on the Right Use of Greek Literature,writes about Alexander’s relationshipwith Darius’ daughters as a positive example for his audience (Basil. Ad. adolesc. 7.9).

Jewish Alexander and the King’s Visit to Jerusalem

There were several Jewish traditions concerning Alexander, and one of the earliest is documented in the First book of the Maccabees, initially written in Hebrew and then translated to Greek. This work from the latter part of second century bc, depicts the king as a foreign conqueror whose successors, the Seleucids, brought in a repressive regime which gave birth to the Maccabean revolt. This Maccabean critical picture of Alexander clearly made an impact on subsequently negative portrayals of Alexander (1Macc.i.1–10). However, a different tradition of Alexander can be read from the book of Daniel which depicts the king’s illustrious career as part of the divine biblical prophecy. In addition to his alleged role cryptically outlined in the book of Daniel, Jewish tradition of Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem also became popular in the early Christian reception. For the early Jewish traditions, and their impact to the medieval Alexander, see:

Saskia Dönitz, “Alexander the Great in Medieval Hebrew Traditions”, in Brill’s Companion to Alexander Literature in the Middle Ages ed. David Z. Zuwiya, (Brill, 2011), 21–26; George Cary, The Medieval Alexander (Cambridge University Press, 1956), 18.

For the early Christian writers the book of Daniel was well-known since it belonged to the canon of the Old Testament. In addition, its prophecies became part of the theological debate when anti-Christian writers, like Porphyry, questioned the authenticity of Daniel’s prophecies (P.M. Casey, “Porphyry and the Origin of the Book of Daniel”, Journal of Theological Studies, 27, (1976): 15–33. 75 Cf. Joseph. aj. 10.273–274; Ibid). Like Jews, also the early Christians viewed the book of Daniel as the work of a real Prophet who lived in the times of Babylonia and Persia and not a piece of later composition (Cf. Joseph. aj. 10.273–274; Ibid. 11.337, and Mathew 24.15; Mark 13.14). In the book of Daniel, Alexander (like the other rulers or kingdoms mentioned in the visions) is not called by name but by interpretative, metaphorical and symbolical language. In the early Christian reception of Daniel, Alexander appears in four different visions: in the statue designed from different metals, being one of the four beasts, a four-winged leopard and representing the victorious and suddenly vanished he-goat and finally as one king in the apocalyptic struggle between the ‘Southern’ and ‘Northern’ kings ( Daniel 2:39; 7:6, 8:3–8, 20–22; 11:3–4).

This image of the Danielic Alexander was adopted widely by the early Christian writers (Jer. Vita. Hil. Pref. 9–11; Origen. Phil. 23.4–5; Chryst. Hom. v. 7.1–5). According to their view, Alexander was not only a brutal pagan king depicted in the first book of the Maccabees, or Roman Latin Stoic writers, but also a king whose success was part of God’s plans as revealed through prophetic predictions. The two commentaries of Daniel written by Hippolytus (170–236ad) and Jerome give us a good insight into Alexander’s position in the Danielic prophecies and their Christian interpretations. They agreed on which parts of Daniel’s verses were referring to Alexander. The longest passage of explanation appears when Jerome comes to the seventh chapter of the book of Daniel. The Danielic reception of Alexander was praising Christianity and God himself. In John Chrysostom’s (ca. 345–407ad) Homilies on 1. Thessalonians (1–11)this Danielic reception of Alexander forms part of the overall argumentation.

Josephus was an important source for the Christian writers of antiquity and the Middle Ages, especially because he depicted the Biblical past which the Christians adopted as part of their own shared history. For the reasonsforJosephus popularity among the Christian writers, see Louis H. Feldman, “Origen’s ‘Contra Celsum’ and Josephus’ ‘Contra Apionem’: The Issue of Jewish Origins”, Vigiliae Christianae, Vol. 44, No. 2. (1990): 105; Heinz Schreckenberg, Die Flavius-JosephusTradition in Antike und Mittelalter (Leiden Brill, 1972). When it comes to Alexander in Josephus, the tradition of king’s visit to Jerusalem was wellknown (Joseph. aj. 11.306–345). The story of the visit appears also in other Jewish sources like the Jewish version of the Alexander Romance and in the rabbinic literature (Alex. Rom. 2.24). For the visit In Rabbinic literature, see Amram Tropper, Simeon the Righteous in Rabbinic Literature: A Legend Reinvented (Brill, 2013), 136–156. According to the story, Alexander visited Jerusalem and even venerated the Jewish high priest, entered the Temple and let the Jewish people keep their privileges. The outcome was miraculous and part of God’s way to deliver his chosen people from severe threat arranged by their enemies, similar to how God had protected his people in the Biblical past.

Against Celsus and Augustine’s The City of God both portray this alleged visit and are the longest extant, early Christian references to the story (Origen, C. Cels 5.50.9–14; August. De civ. 18.45). In Origen, Alexander’s visit is one form of proof that God favoured theJewish people of that time. Origen mentions that Alexander did obeisance before the high priest and saw a divine vision like those found in Jewish tradition.