Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1/2009
Irina FRASIN
Gh. Zane Institute of Social and Economic Research,
No. 2, T. Codrescu street, Iasi, Romania
irinaada@gmail.com
Abstract. Under Alexander the Great the Greeks conquered Asia. This extraordinary
undertaking was made possible, beside the military achievement, by the Greek thought
and philosophy. The belief in the superiority of the Greek over the barbarian and freedom
of the first and slavery of the second rendered the conquest and domination of Asia into a
noble mission of civilization. What is more, Western historians of philosophy and
culture have used this Greek self-understanding to legitimate the view of Western cultural
superiority based on universalism.
But the expedition and conquest was also an amazing opportunity of meeting and
knowing directly the Other. What Alexander discovered was that the world was much
larger than it was thought in Athens and the barbarians were not so unreasonable as
Aristotle believed. All these things, that raged the kings contemporaries, are very well kept
by his legend. The deep sense of his adventures is revealed by the legend. Alexander,
passionate for adventure, discovery, curious to know the Other is the hero that fights
the absolute other: the foreigner, the barbarian, the monster. But with all his actions he
demonstrates that the Other can be recognized, understood and even loved.
And maybe his extraordinary discovery should guide us as a model in the turbulent times
we live in which cultural differences become more and more important.
Keywords: culture, myth, the Other, conflict, domination, communication.
The problem of the Other, the meeting, the conflict and the
communication with the Other are issues as long as history. Ever since
we have recorded history we find proof of conflicts and attempts to
understand and face the Other.
The perception of ones own identity in ethnic groups is
accompanied by a delimitation with regard to an external world that is felt
to be totally different from oneself. The idea that this world is uniform
derives simply from the fact that it differs, to a sometimes varying degree,
from customary standards. It is enough to cite the way Greek view of the
193
Irina FRASIN, The Myth of Alexander the Great. A Model for Understanding the Other
194
Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology, vol. VI, no. 1/2009
195
Irina FRASIN, The Myth of Alexander the Great. A Model for Understanding the Other
5 Eschil, Persii, trad. Alexandru Miran, Editura Univers, Bucuresti, 2000, v. 242, p. 92.
6 Isocrate, Panegiric, trad. Andrei Marin, in Pagini alese din oratori greci, E.P.L.A., Bucuresti,
1969, p. 138.
7 Herodotous,Histories, Wordsworth Classics, London, 1996, III, p. 270 and next.
196
Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology, vol. VI, no. 1/2009
embodied the universal values they wanted to take them all over the world.
They believed in the unique and superior value of their culture.
Concepts like that of nationalism and xenophobia were built having
as base the innate fear that makes us regard the others from different
cultures with lack of trust or envy. This leads to the desire or the need to
surpass the other cultures. It is impossible not to notice that the
domination over foreign peoples and territories is common throughout
history. It has often been said that the empire that Alexander the Great
founded in Asia was made possible by the influences of the Persian culture
over the young king. But despite this, the possibility of making an empire
depends on the existence of an idea of empire. And this idea was born
from the aspiration towards the universal that we find in the writings of the
Greeks authors one century before. But the great achievement of
Alexander of Macedon surpassed the imagination of the Greek thinkers.
And if their theories were used by the Europeans to help them understand
themselves and legitimize their cultural superiority based on universalism,
maybe we should use the experience of Alexanders exploit to help us
understand and respect the Other, recognizing the differences in the
same time.
The conquering hero dreams of an universal empire that supposes
the melting in the same pot which is kosmopolis of all the different traditions
and customs of Greeks and Macedonians and all the peoples of the Persian
Empire. Plutarch8 tells us clearly about this dream. The cultural and
spiritual panhellenism of Isocrates is but the starting point considering that
the Greek thinker could only admit as right what was in the spirit of Greek
culture from other places of the world. But the oriental influences of the
kosmocrator, his proclamation as rightful heir of the pharaohs and master of
the Achaemenids kings surpasses any Greek utopia. Some historians9
have suggested that these actions of Alexander, like many others 10, were
dictated to the king by practical reasons: it would have been simply
impossible to dominate such a huge territory only with the soldiers
brought from Greece and Macedonia and without the cooperation of
the locals. Nevertheless this should not make us neglect the
extraordinary vision of Alexander the Great.
8 Plutarch, Vieti paralele, Editura Stiintifica, Bucuresti, 1957, LXX, LXXI, p. 89.
9 Donald W. Engels, Alexander the Great and the Logistics of the Macedonian Army, University
of California Press, 1997.
10 The introducing of Persian men into the army, the mass marriages at Susa and so on.
197
Irina FRASIN, The Myth of Alexander the Great. A Model for Understanding the Other
198
Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology, vol. VI, no. 1/2009
generates the equality of rights, he tried realize the universal empire he
melted and recomposed in a great pot of friendship the lives, the
characters, the marriages and customs and wanted that everyone consider
the whole Earth his country11. His politics, although created enmity
between his generals and plots against him, brought for him the admiration
of the thinkers of the following centuries.
There are many ways of understanding Alexander the Great and his
exploits and the various interpretations of thinkers and historians stands
proof to this. Along the centuries his personality, his empire and legacy
have been studied from different perspectives. The relics and the ancient
literary sources offer just a base for our image of Alexander the Great.
Thus our interest refers not so much to historically proven data but to the
thought of people. Reading the legend of the conqueror and following its
development along the centuries we can see and understand not only the
image of the king, but also the preoccupations of the Greeks, Romans,
Byzantians and other peoples and societies including the contemporary
one. For the purpose of our research the historical truth is not as relevant
as the image of the conqueror in peoples mind. The facts are for
historians to debate on, but what is more interesting is the idea that stands
behind them: what determined Alexander the Great to act in the way he
did. And as this question will probably remain forever without a certain
answer we should turn to legend to see the probable replies, to see what
people along the centuries imagined and wanted to believe that stand
behind Alexanders actions.
The idea of world wide domination was very early associated with
Alexander the Great. In spite of anterior projects the Egyptian idea that
the pharaoh is the master of the peoples of the four cardinal points or the
tradition of the Great Persian Kings this idea reflects the Greek desire to
underline the universal mission of the conqueror. Thus the idea of the
kosmocrator is very largely known and appreciated all over the Greek and
Roman world. This emphasizes the universality and eternity of Alexanders
conquest, denouncing any form of despotic ambition and lack of measure.
Any way, the general impression that the great adventure of
Alexander of Macedon leaves in the mind of the reader cannot be resumed
to a military and economic exploit. The desire to know the world, to
understand the mysteries of an even larger universe as got farther away
11Destinul lui Alexandru, I, 6, 1, quoted by Jean Sirinelli in Urmasii lui Alexandru, Editura
Teora, Bucuresti, 2000, p. 21.
199
Irina FRASIN, The Myth of Alexander the Great. A Model for Understanding the Other
200
Cultura. International Journal of Philosophy of Culture and Axiology, vol. VI, no. 1/2009
immortality can make him change his mind12. From this point of view
Alexander and Odisseus are opposite characters: no matter how far from
home Alexander gets, no matter how many wonders he discovers his need
of the new is never satisfied. The passion for adventure, discovery and the
curiosity to meet the Other make of Alexander the hero that meets the
ultimate Other: the foreigner, the barbarian, the monster. But with all that
he does he demonstrates that the Other can be recognized, understood
and even loved13. Finally, at the end of his adventures Alexander get the
wisdom he was searching for. He remains the prototype for the
adventurous hero, passionate for knowing the Other and the world, free
by his knowledge and with the promise of immortality.
Centuries after the death of the hero, the legend of his adventures
continues to be retold, adapted to different cultures and traditions that it
encountered. In Arabic, Persian or Hebrew, Alexander becomes a visionary
prophet, a builder, the greatest and fairest king. The deeds and actions of
Alexander the Great continue to fascinate us even today because they
surpass the limits of time and the adventure hero is the best example of a
non-historic individual14. By what it has more deep and profound, his
exploits continue to be a model for us today, in the turbulent times we live in.
For a long time the Western civilization dominated the world. It
tried, and succeeded, most of the times, to impose its model all over the
world. Fed by the ideas of the superiority of its thought and way of life,
inspired by its Greek ancestors, the European actions mirrored its despise
and lack of understanding of the others. The colonial thinking shows this
very clearly: the imperialistic tendencies mean profit not only for the
mother country, but also for the colony, that gets the benefits of
civilization.
This way of seeing things created restlessness and conflict,
especially as the subjected parts began to get back their voice. All the
societies try to preserve themselves, their belief and customs, their language
and religion and economic and political independence. And nowadays, as
Samuel Huntington underlines in this book15, the cultural maps become
more and more important. The global politics are dominated by rivalry
between different cultures.
201
Irina FRASIN, The Myth of Alexander the Great. A Model for Understanding the Other
But today, the Others appear on the scene of the worlds politics
and the Western civilization must take them into consideration. This
situation creates new possibilities for all partners. The model that was
successful for so long needs change, and this leaves the West somehow
puzzled. The globalization in the name of western values needs now the
contribution and acceptance of the others. As many researchers debating
this problem showed, the future of us all depends on the ability of
communication, the ability of true dialogue, in which all partners are heard
and understood. It is of crucial importance that the West finds new ways of
communicating not to but with the Other. And what is perhaps even
more important is to realize that its not doing this on its own, but together
with the others. And for this the great lesson of history that we turned to
should help. The visionary king understood much before us that to create
harmony in the world we should open up a dialogue where no one has the
last word.
On the other hand, if we keep reading the myth of Alexander, we
discover that the deep truth and hidden knowledge that the king uncovers
at the end of his fabulous adventures is that the Other is indispensable.
The Socratic knowledge, the discovery of ones self passes by the
knowledge of the Other. King Alexander tries to find the ultimate other
at the ends of the world in order to get a better knowledge and
understanding of himself. In the end he achieves a mysterious land, where
men know a superior kind of happiness: he obtains wisdom, the Absolute,
the Immortality. For whoever reached the wisdom, the universe has no
more secrets. The whole voyage of Alexander is an initiation. But what we
should not neglect is that to get to the self knowledge that the Delphic
oracle demanded Know thyself we should reflect ourselves in the
mirror of the other. For a long time the Other was seen as a threat or
an inferior race or simply neglected; but if we learn to take him as a
dialogue partner, we have the promise that this will lead to a totally new
kind of experience.
202