What do You think about The Nature Of Alexander (1979)?
I'm just a big fan of Alexander the Great. I've read this book and a lot more about him, but I just can't recall titles and authors except for Renault. I'm reminded of Renault because I read her trilogy of historical fiction on Alexander. She also wrote this book which is more nonfiction or rater a collection of observations and opinions, legends, etc. on Alexander the Great told by the various cultures he touched, and influenced.Who knows what Alexander the Great was truely like, but I've enjoyed reading about the different accounts. Unfortunately, most of the histories of Alexander were told long after his death. I wonder what Pytolomy's library would have revealed of Alexander? Such a loss. :(
—Jennifer
Mosaic, Alexander at the Battle of Isis 333 BC (Wiki)Note: For a far more perceptive review than this one, see Sarah's.This could be a five star book, but I’ve been conservative since it’s so long since I read it. (It’s probably worth a re-read, actually).The Nature of Alexander is a popular, non-academic, very readable biography of Alexander the Great. It is Mary Renault’s only non-fiction book. There’s a very brief Wiki article on the book, in which it is stated that it’s not a “neutral” book, but presents Alexander in a very favorable light. Nevertheless, the book is cited as a source 18 times in the Wiki article on Alexander, which is an indication that although a “popular” work, it is by no means devoid of authority.The book does not use footnotes, another indication of its popular style. But there is a very useful list of Ancient Sources used by Renault in the back, which she prefaces by saying “This book is meant for general readers; and the following list may serve as a guide to those wishing to make their own assessments and explorations.” The list is short enough (perhaps 20 works) to not overwhelm, and does include four modern secondary sources.)Renault organizes these works into five categories. The first has no title, but is simply five works in which considerable information about Alexander has come down to us. These are by Arrian, Quintus Curtius, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, and Justin. The other categories are Additional biographical details or anecdotes (5, one modern), Works relevant to Alexander’s life and times (5), Works known to Alexander, which certainly or probably influenced his thought (4), and For the legend (3, all modern).From the inside cover: The aim of Mary Renault’s study has been to peel off from this complex and dynamic human being the accumulated layers of wishful thinking, both idealizing and ideological, and show him not in our terms but his: as he saw himself, and was seen by his friends, his enemies, the men he led and the peoples he conquered. Besides the statements of those who knew him in life, of which many fragments have been preserved, she has studied the folk memory, ‘which can be neither enforced nor bought’, handed down in the lands he ruled. The book has a five page index of proper names (very useful). I brought it upstairs recently hoping to find out something about the period of time in Alexander’s youth when he was engaged with Aristotle, and wasn’t disappointed. The index immediately pointed me to a six page section in which the relationship is discussed (as well as numerous other references to Aristotle through the work.)The book is handsomely illustrated in color and black and white. Some of the numerous illustrations are photographs of places (many full page), other are depictions of sculptures, jewelry, tapestries, etc. connected with Alexander, his times, or his legend. There’s a two page section giving details and acknowledgment for all the illustrations. The image above shows a two-page illustration of Alexander's funeral car, by Edward Mottelmans. The inscription in the upper left is from Diodorus. The carriage ... appeared more magnificent when seen than when described. Because of its wide fame it drew together many spectators; for from every city it came to, the people came out to meet it, and followed beside it when it went away, never wearied of their pleasure in the sight. This car was pulled by 64 mules for months across a thousand miles of Asia.For anyone interested in a very readable biography of Alexander, I would highly recommend Renault's book.
—Ted
Focusing a great deal of her attention on Alexander the Great's psychological evolution, Mary Renault here writes a different sort of historical biography. She is clearly well-read in all things Alexander, and even more clear is her absolute bias towards him. She leaves little room for argument, though there are several throughout. She uses much of the histories of Arrian, Ptolemy, Xenophon and others but at times puts her imagination to good use by filling in the blanks. While not a poorly written book, it feels one should take Renault's history with a grain of salt. It is interesting to try and imagine what Alexander the Great was really like as a person, how far his kindnesses as a leader and as a lover would take him, etc.; at the same time, however, it is important to remember that Renault was looking back in history, often with rose-tinted glasses on, and it is impossible even for her to be able to know the complete truth. Even while Alexander was known as one of the greatest military leaders in history, there is a reason he is also known as one of the greatest conquerors in military history also. This is a fact that Renault tended to sort of glaze over as a whole.There seems to be more about Alexander's death here than is found in most histories, and for that I was pleased. Renault does throw out medical options, though she evidently believed primarily in Alexander's murder, as she did with Alexander's (probable) lover, Hephaestion.I mostly enjoyed this history, and Renault's experience as a fiction writer helped spur my interest throughout, even if I cringed at moments that felt a little too imaginary for a historical biography. I wished that there was a map of Alexander's conquest included, though that is mainly me just being lazy on a sick day and being grumpy about having to look it up myself.
—El
