Vorstenschool. Vier geschiedenisschrijvers over Alexander en hun visie op het keizerschap

Alexander the Great has been renowned both in the middle ages and at other times as one of the most celebrated heroes. Stories of his deeds have been handed down in almost every language and civilization. He was known everywhere, loved by everyone. He was world famous. This very fact diminishes his attractiveness in the eyes of modern historians. They pay him scant attention. For what is there that is new and interesting to be told about his tradition in the middle ages? In this study nevertheless the medieval Alexander is given a central position in a piece of historical research to show that the tradition was not only old and venerable but also living and changing, and that it can open our eyes to more fundamental problems concealed by these apparently superficial stories. Central to my studies are four twelfth-century historians, all living in German court circles, and, with the probable exception of Frutolf, actively engaged in imperial politics. These are Frutolf of Michelsberg (tll02 Ekkehard of Aura (T after 1125), Otto of Freising (T 1158), and Godfrey of Viterbo (T after 1191). As far as the Latin world was concerned, the collection of stories about Alexander was put together in late antiquity. In the early middle ages authors, whether of world chronicles, theological tracts or literary works used only a limited part of the available material, and it was always broadly the same part. They must have known the other material, the stories that Pseudo-Callisthenes collected in his Alexander romance, the letters that were attributed to Alexander himself, the prophecies and the legends. They were compiled, written down and handed down everywhere. But they were certainly not quoted in other works. Why not? Was this by chance or by deliberate decision? ... Zie: Summary