Stories are often reshaped in order to for different people, religions, and cultures to relate, but it can be assumed that not any as much as the tale of Alexander the Great. Alexander the Great was crowned king at twenty years old after his fathers’ death, and for most of his kingship, he traveled on a military campaign in hopes of conquering all of the known world. Considering the tale of Alexander the Great is so prevalent throughout the world, many have molded it to fit their own cultures because of his powerfulness. Therefore, problematizing dichotomies of the East and West differ throughout each version. Richard Stoneman’s, translation of the Pseudo-Callisthenes focuses on Alexander the Great’s domination from Greece to Africa and Asia.
…show more content…
He was Alexander the Great, his wit and ferocity helped him to colonize any land that he sought after. Therefore, his denying of the West in Conklin Akbari’s writing, “Alexander in the Orient: Bodies and Boundaries in the Roman de Toute Chevalerie,” proved that it was unworthy of colonization because of the disgraceful people and inhospitable lands. Conklin Akbari explains in her discussion, that Thomas of Kent does not include Rome as a conquered land because "there is nothing there worth conquering" (108). This is important because unlike in the Greek Romance, Kent practices a tripartite view of the world and having placed markers at the three farthest ends of the East, North, and South, Alexander is considered to conquer the known world in its entirety. Conversely, the Pseudo-Callisthenes version does not omit the West in Alexander’s travels. Instead, Alexander competes and wins the chariot race in the Rome Olympic Games. Soon after returning he goes back again to conquer Rome and without a fight is given gifts and men to help him conquer more places, so he "promised to make them great and mighty" (Stoneman 61). In the Greek romance, Rome immediately shows its inferiority when it so quickly forfeits itself to Alexander. Although, unbeknown to Alexander, the Romans would ultimately come to be the next powerful empire under Augustus Caesar. Conklin Akbari proposes that “the absent voyage into the West signals Alexander’s role as harbinger of imperial conquests to follow: the conquest of the known world by Rome, the great city of the West, and the subsequent rise of European might in the far western regions” (110). Therefore, the discount of the West in many of the Romances foreshadows the rise of the West. Ultimately, it seems that quadripartite reading of the romances is
He was Alexander the Great, his wit and ferocity helped him to colonize any land that he sought after. Therefore, his denying of the West in Conklin Akbari’s writing, “Alexander in the Orient: Bodies and Boundaries in the Roman de Toute Chevalerie,” proved that it was unworthy of colonization because of the disgraceful people and inhospitable lands. Conklin Akbari explains in her discussion, that Thomas of Kent does not include Rome as a conquered land because "there is nothing there worth conquering" (108). This is important because unlike in the Greek Romance, Kent practices a tripartite view of the world and having placed markers at the three farthest ends of the East, North, and South, Alexander is considered to conquer the known world in its entirety. Conversely, the Pseudo-Callisthenes version does not omit the West in Alexander’s travels. Instead, Alexander competes and wins the chariot race in the Rome Olympic Games. Soon after returning he goes back again to conquer Rome and without a fight is given gifts and men to help him conquer more places, so he "promised to make them great and mighty" (Stoneman 61). In the Greek romance, Rome immediately shows its inferiority when it so quickly forfeits itself to Alexander. Although, unbeknown to Alexander, the Romans would ultimately come to be the next powerful empire under Augustus Caesar. Conklin Akbari proposes that “the absent voyage into the West signals Alexander’s role as harbinger of imperial conquests to follow: the conquest of the known world by Rome, the great city of the West, and the subsequent rise of European might in the far western regions” (110). Therefore, the discount of the West in many of the Romances foreshadows the rise of the West. Ultimately, it seems that quadripartite reading of the romances is