Argumentative/Research Essay: Ancient Roman & Greek Witches Assignment | Get Paper Help

Essay Question: What are some of the characteristics of a Greco-Roman witch? Do Greek and Roman witches differ from each-other in literature? Were Medea and Circe witches?
– I would like the essay to argue that Medea and Circe are witches.

Essay Guidelines:
– Each essay should be about 1500 words, NOT including footnotes unless they contain extra sentences of discussion.
– Students should select and discuss specific ancient literary and/or archaeological evidence which helps to answer the chosen question, and engage with the modern scholarship which is listed in the tutorial’s essential and recommended readings list (scroll down for the list of sources)
– Aim for ~15 Ancient Sources and ~15 Modern Sources
– A guide to what the referencing should look like under “Classics UGrad Referencing Guide”
– A list of extra Ancient Sources for my topic under “Ancient Sources”
– A sample of what my essay should look like under “Sample Essay”

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Argumentative/Research Essay: Ancient Roman & Greek Witches Assignment | Get Paper Help
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Criteria & Marking:
Your essay will be assessed according to the following criteria:
1. Ability to construct a well-reasoned argument.
2. Depth and breadth of knowledge and understanding of central issues.
3. Ability to form a well-structured essay.
4. Engagement with academic sources and evidence.
5. Insight and/or creativity in interpreting texts or constructing a point of view or argument.
6. Capacity to produce a coherent and well-written essay using correct grammar and syntax.
7. Appropriately referenced, as per discipline conventions.

Essay Sources:

Ancient Sources:
Essential Reading
Euripides’ Medea
Homer’s Odyssey. Book 10.
Ovid’s Heroides 12.
Ovid’s Metamorphoses. Books 7 and 14.
+ Watson, L. 2019. ‘Fictional Witches,’ in Magic in Ancient Greece and Rome. London: Bloomsbury Academic. pp. 167-202. (Modern Source)

Recommended Reading
Primary Sources
Apuleius’ Metamophoses 1.
Horace’s Satires 1.8, 2.1, 2.8; Epodes 3, 5, 17.
Seneca’s Medea.
Theocritus’ Idyll 2.

Modern Sources:
Secondary Sources
Dickie, M. W. 2001. Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World. London: Routledge.
Edmonds, R. G. 2019. Drawing Down the Moon: Magic in the Ancient Greco-Roman World. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Frankenfurter, D. ed. 2019. Guide to the Study of Ancient Magic. Leiden: Brill.
Gordon, R. 2009. ‘’Magic as a Topos in Augustan Poetry”: Discourse, Reality and Distance’. ARG 11.1: 209–228.
Levack, B. P. ed. 1992. Witchcraft in the Ancient World and the Middle Ages. New York: Garland.
Montesano, M. 2018. Classical Culture and Witchcraft in Medieval and Renaissance Italy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 11-66.
Ogden, D. 2002. Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A Sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ogden, D. 2008. Night’s Black Agents: Witches, Wizards and the Dead in the Ancient World. London/New York: Hambledon Continuum.
Paule, M. T. 2014. ‘QVAE SAGA, QVIS MAGVS: On the Vocabulary of the Roman Witch’, The Classical Quarterly 64.2, pp. 745-757.
Paule, M. T. 2017. Canidia, Rome’s First Witch. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Stratton, K.B. 2007. Naming the Witch: Magic, Ideology, and Stereotype in the Ancient World. New York.
Stratton, K.B. and D.S. Kalleres, eds. 2014. Daughters of Hecate: Women and Magic in the Ancient World. New York.
Watson, L. 2019. Magic in Ancient Greece and Rome. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

School of History, Philosophy, Religion, and Classics
(Please tick)
COURSE NAME: Alexander the Great and the Hellenistic World
LECTURER/TUTOR: Professor R.D. Milns
TOPIC: Should the letters and diary used by Plutarch for his Life of
Alexander be regarded as authentic historical documents?
DUE DATE: 2nd May
NAME: Mary Smith
ADDRESS: 14 The Gap Road, The Gap. QLD. 4321.
PHONE NUMBER AND EMAIL: 1234 5678; [email protected]
This assignment is my own original work and all the sources used in its composition have
been acknowledged.
I certify that each assignment submitted has not been submitted either previously or
concurrently in whole or in part to this University or any other educational institution for
marking and assessment.
SIGNED: Mary Smith
Should the letters and diary used by Plutarch for his Life of Alexander be
regarded as authentic historical documents?
The authenticity of the enigmatic letters and journal1 used by Plutarch in his Life of
Alexander has long since been a point of contention for historians. Modern
scholarship has resulted in discussions concerning interpretations of crucial Greek
phrases,2 methods and reliability of other ancient authors who cite the documents,
such as Arrian,3 Athenaeus4 and Aelian,5 and possible anachronisms contained in
citations of the journal. 6 Despite such extensive scholarship, the question of
authenticity still cannot be adequately resolved. This essay will examine first the
authenticity of the journal, then that of the letters, quoted by Plutarch,7 by consulting
the work of other ancient authors and attempting to discern how authors could access
such documents. Neither the journal nor the letters may legitimately be considered
authentic historical documents, due to the fact that they are not extant; however, it
1 For the sake of simplicity, the term ‘journal’ will be used throughout this essay to refer to the Greek
word ephemerides. Ephemerides may also be translated as the plural ‘journals’ (Perrin 1971: 289, 433,
435; Scott-Kilvert 1973: 277, 322, 333) or ‘diary’. For an excellent study on the word ephemerides,
see Samuel (1965:1-3, 8), who thought that, when used with reference to Alexander, ephemerides may
also mean ‘day-book’.
2 The main phrases under scrutiny occur in Arrian (7.26.3) and in the Suda entry for ‘Strattis’ (the text
of which is given in Pearson 1954-55: 437 and, alongside several variants, Samuel 1965: 7). For
lengthy discussions on translating the sentence in Arrian, see Pearson 1954-55: 438; Badian 1987: 611;
Hammond 1988: 142, 144; Bosworth 1988: 162. For interpretations of the Suda entry, see Pearson
1954-55: 437; Bosworth 1988: 181; Samuel 1965: 7, Hammond 1988: 141-2; Badian 1987: 621-2.
3 Arrian’s account of Alexander’s last days (7.25-7), which he takes from the journal, is strikingly
similar to Plutarch’s.
4 Very little is known about Athenaeus, who references the journal in conjunction with Alexander’s
drinking (10.434b). The Deipnosophists or ‘Table-Talk’ appears to have been written ‘early in the
reign of Septimius Severus (reigned 193-211 CE)’ (Olson 2006: vii). Bosworth (1988: 298) refers to
Athenaeus’ content as ‘anecdotal material’ and suggests that it stemmed from documents dating to the
period following Alexander’s death.
5 Aelian, who may have been born c. AD 170, appears to have known the work of Plutarch (Wilson
1997: 2) and possibly borrowed from Athenaeus (Wilson 1997: 10). He seems to indirectly cite the
journal in Historical Miscellany 3.23.
6 There is much historical debate over whether or not the cult of Sarapis, visited by Alexander’s friends
(Plut. Alex 76.9; Ar. 7.26), existed when Alexander was in Babylon. Bosworth (1988: 167-70) and
Hammond (1988: 143) have most convincingly argued that it did exist at the time, refuting the views of
Pearson 1954-55: 438-9.
7 The journal is extensively quoted almost ‘word for word’ in Plutarch’s Life of Alexander 76-7.
Another reference to the journal occurs at 23.4. For a survey of all the letters cited by Plutarch in the
Life, see Hamilton 1961.
may be proposed that, though Alexander unquestionably composed and received
letters (Pearson 1954-55: 443) and possessed records of some description (Pearson
1954-55: 434), those utilised by Plutarch were almost certainly not the originals.
Plutarch was not the only ancient author to mention the journal. Arrian (7.25-7)
offers a similar account of Alexander’s last days, declaring that his information comes
from ‘the king’s journals’ and ‘No detail in addition to these is recorded by [Ptolemy
and Aristobulus].’ The aforementioned phrase has caused debate, since it may be
translated in two significantly different ways; 8 however, Badian (1987: 611)
demonstrates that Hammond’s interpretation (1988: 144) must be universally
accepted. Though indisputably similar in regards to the general course of Alexander’s
illness, Arrian’s account excludes certain days and expands upon conversations
mentioned in Plutarch (Bosworth 1988: 164). Bosworth (1988: 165) finds these
minor discrepancies ‘radical’ but Pearson (1954-55: 438) offers the valid suggestion
that Arrian ‘sometimes “corrects” the Diary by reference to Aristobulus or Ptolemy’.
The journal is mentioned in an earlier chapter of Plutarch’s Alexander (3.23),
describing Alexander’s hunting jaunts, in a dubious Suda entry (Bosworth 1988: 181),
which reveals that an unknown author named Strattis wrote ‘five books about the
Ephemerides of Alexander’, 9 and in Athenaeus’ Deipnosophists (10.434b), which
uses the journal to prove that Alexander was a heavy drinker. Aelian (3.23) also
expounds on Alexander’s drinking and, though he does not directly reference the
journal, his style indicates that this was where he obtained his information (Samuel
8 See n. 2 above. The phrase may theoretically be translated as either ‘Nothing beyond this point is
recorded by them’ or ‘No detail in addition to these is recorded by them’ (Hammond 1988: 134). Brunt
uses the latter in his Loeb translation.
9 Hammond (1972: 19) and Bosworth (1988: 181) decisively prove that Pearson’s rendering of the
entry as ‘Five Books of Diaries about the Exploits of Alexander’ (1954-55: 437) is unacceptable.
Badian (1987: 622) agrees.
1965: 4). It can now be seen that, excepting Plut. Alex. 23, all ancient references to
the journal concern Alexander’s last days (Samuel 1965: 6) or his drinking (Bosworth
1988: 173-4), which should immediately cause concern regarding their authenticity.
It is difficult to accept the views of many modern historians concerning Alexander’s
journal, because so many arguments are based upon conjecture. Though Pearson
(1954-55: 439) and Badian (1987: 618) convincingly disproved Hammond’s
hypothesis that the journal was genuine, Hammond consistently maintained his
accuracy. 10 Many other theories have surfaced, but Bosworth’s seems most
credible. 11 Most proposed solutions to the question of the journal’s authenticity
contain noteworthy points and there seems no alternative but to combine modern
scholars’ ideas and offer a case for cautiously rejecting the authenticity of the journal,
based on the idea that it was propaganda, concocted to quash rumours damaging to
the successors in the aftermath of Alexander’s death.12
It is possible that, as Bosworth (1988: 178-9) suggests, Eumenes, Alexander’s ‘chief
secretary’,13 propagated an ‘official’ diary to quell rumours of certain marshals’ roles
in orchestrating Alexander’s murder at a banquet held by Medius, which is mentioned
in all ancient sources that refer to Alexander’s death.14 Eumenes probably based this
account on his own notes, rather than on Babylonian records, as Samuel (1965: 11)
proposed, which would hardly have contained the detailed information required
10 See Hammond 1971: 17-31, Hammond 1983: 4-11 especially 5, Hammond 1991: 382-4
11 See Bosworth 1971: 112-36 and Bosworth 1988: 157-84, also Bosworth’s Conquest and Empire
1988: 299.
12 Bosworth first proposed this theory in The Death of Alexander: Rumour and Propaganda in the
Ancient World (1971: 112-36) and later restated it in From Arrian to Alexander (1988: 157-84).
13 See Plutarch’s Life of Eumenes. Bosworth (1988: 179) pointed out that ‘Eumenes’ rank made it
inherently likely that he was… close enough to Alexander’s person to have been sensitive to rumours
about poisoning.’
14 Bosworth (1971: 115) proposes this idea. Arrian (7.25), Plutarch (75.4), Diodorus (17.117), Justin
(13.7) and the Alexander Romance (3.31) all mention Medius’ banquet.
(Bosworth 1971: 118). The idea that Alexander’s death was suspicious is irrelevant
here, but it is relevant that rumours of murder spread after Alexander died (Bosworth
1971: 113). These rumours were enough to worry the prominent Macedonians who
almost certainly attended the banquet, especially Antipater, who was at odds with
Alexander and Olympias.15 The Alexander Romance (3.31) explicitly names the
participants,16 but their presence can be reasonably conjectured without using this
dubious source. Since the Macedonian public would hardly have wanted a king
suspected of embroilment in a regicide, the journal was necessary. Without an
‘official’ document that allayed public concerns, Antipater would have risked
interrogation from the army and perhaps revolt. Anson (1996: 501-2) recently sought
to disprove Bosworth’s suggestion that the journal was propaganda, drawing attention
to public illiteracy and inability to comprehend the content of the document; however,
rumours had to be assuaged somehow, not only for the public but for later historians.
The fact that a concrete ‘official’ source that made no mention of poison could be
produced and was perhaps openly explained by the successors, could have been
enough to persuade the Macedonians. Also, if the journal was not propaganda, it
must be asked why only the particular section concerning Alexander’s death was
deemed worthy of publication, since it portrayed Alexander as a careless drunkard.
At the time, historians could not write about the poisoning plot, whether true or not,
because they risked severe punishment from Antipater; however, they could impart
stories orally. The earliest source for Alexander, Diodorus (Bosworth 1971: 113),
along with other authors considered part of the ‘vulgate’ tradition, deserve some
15 Diodorus 17.118, Justin 14.1-5, Quintus Curtius 10.10.14, Alexander Romance 3.31.
16 ‘They included Perdiccas, Ptolemy, Olcias, Lysimachus, Eumenes and Cassander.’
credibility, which authors like Arrian have tended to steal from them.17 According to
Hamilton (1961: 11), ‘we are not justified in assuming that the evidence of the “good
tradition”, i.e. primarily Ptolemy, is invariably correct.’ Diodorus, known to have had
access to Hieronymus, a contemporary of Alexander (Badian 1987: 606, 608), and
Quintus Curtius, writing in the imperial period (Baynham 1998: 7), both mention the
poisoning. Curtius (10.10.18) indirectly acknowledges that some form of propaganda
circulated, stating, ‘These tales, however much they were given credence, the power
of those whom rumour had aspersed presently suppressed.’ As Bosworth (1971: 123)
points out, Curtius ‘could judge the value of official apologetic better than most of his
successors.’ Baynham (1998: 84) agrees, stating that, ‘Curtius was conscious of the
power of kings to suppress rumour…’ Justin (13.10), epitomising Pompeius Trogus,
an earlier source who probably wrote during Augustus’ reign, blatantly asserted that,
‘His friends put it about that the cause of his illness was excessive drinking, but in
fact it was a conspiracy, though the scandal was suppressed by the power of the
successors.’ None of these vulgate authors mentions the journal.
Composing letters and even wills from the perspectives of historical personalities was,
in the Hellenistic period, regarded as a scholarly exercise (Pearson 1954-55: 444),
practised in schools, as papyri containing demonstrably false letters from Alexander
attest (Pearson 1954-55: 449). If later authors wrote letters based on Alexander’s,
why could they not compose journals too? Authors like Strattis, if he existed, since
the Suda entry is too corrupt to be considered evidence,18 or Diodotus19 may have
written accounts of Alexander’s last days as exercises in literary fiction, perhaps even
17 See Baynham 2003 for an excellent overview of the ancient sources for Alexander and how they
have been regarded by scholars.
18 Samuel (1965: 7) labels the text of the Suda ‘generally a mess’. Bosworth (1988: 181) proves that
the Suda entry for ‘Strattis’ can not used as evidence.
19 Diodotus is mentioned by Athenaeus (10.434b) as author of the journal, alongside Eumenes.
purporting to be re-edited versions of Eumenes’ original (Badian 1987: 619, 621).
Alternatively, an author nearer to Plutarch and Arrian’s day may have read Diodorus’
work and felt the need to refute (Pearson 1954-55: 445) his second interpretation of
Alexander’s death by re-publishing the now-obscure journal so that it would gain
widespread readership. The journal must have been widely disseminated ‘since [the
ancient sources] all refer to the Diary as they would to a familiar and recognised
literary work’ (Pearson 1954-55: 436). Widespread availability explains how
Plutarch’s ‘friend and townsman’ Philinus (Clement 1927: 70) and the ‘gossips’
(Badian 1987: 619), Athenaeus, writing in an established literary genre, probably for a
patron (Olson 2006: viii, xiii), and Aelian, gratifying Roman readers (Wilson 1997: 2),
neither apparently much concerned with accuracy, knew of the work’s existence also.
Plutarch and Arrian, with ‘no serious training or methods for sorting genuine works
from pseudepigrapha’ (Badian 1987: 621) encountered copies of the journal. Arrian
found that it did not much differ from Ptolemy, who undoubtedly would not have
written of a poisoning plot in which he could be implicated, and inserted the account
into his work. Plutarch would have been pleased to cite a document that provided
such intimate insight into Alexander’s life. 20 Interestingly, he claims that ‘most
writers… think that the story of the poisoning is altogether a fabrication’ (Alex. 77.5),
which would be unsurprising if the journal was widely circulated, yet the only
evidence he can produce is that Alexander’s body remained ‘pure and fresh’ (Alex.
77.5) in death (Bosworth 1971: 113).
20 Powell (1939: 230) writes of ‘The quiet naivete with which again and again he takes credit to himself
for making use of the letters for the first time.’
It may be that the journal was never ‘authentic’ in the true sense of the word. The
‘original’ could have been propaganda and the edition quoted by Plutarch a literary
fiction, perhaps based on the propaganda. If these ideas seem far-fetched, it cannot be
helped. A few extant ancient sources are all that can be relied upon. Despite the
likelihood of the journal being unauthentic, as previously demonstrated, this can not
be stated outright. Historians possess neither the journal nor other sources from
which Plutarch and Arrian may have obtained their information, and so are in no
position to judge for certain. Though they can theorise, all that can be said, though it
must not be stated as fact, is that the journal used by Plutarch was most likely not an
authentic historical document.
Tentatively rejecting the journal used by Plutarch as unauthentic leads to considering
the letters to which he religiously adhered. General agreement dictates that each letter
must be scrutinised separately (Tarn 1948-50: 300) and Hamilton (1961: 9-20) took
up this challenge, providing a thorough analysis of all letters quoted by Plutarch.
Since Plutarch quoted so many letters, only several will be examined here.
The letters in Plutarch are many and varied. Some serve to illustrate Alexander’s
character (Alex. 22, 39-42), others, written to officers or cities (Alex. 34, 37), were
often inscribed on stone and contained formal instructions (Pearson 1954-55: 443).
Plutarch bases his entire account of the Battle of the Hydaspes on one of Alexander’s
letters (Alex. 60). The extreme point of view, that all letters should be rejected, has
been adopted by Brunt (1976: xxvii) and Kaerst (Hamilton 1961: 9). Though this
may true, it lacks foundation since, as with the journal, no original documentation
survives. It seems most logical to presume, as Hamilton (1961: 10), Tarn (1948-50:
300) and Pearson (1954-55: 454) do, that Plutarch came upon Alexander’s letters in a
Hellenistic compilation (or several compilations) and, since they provided such
detailed glimpses of Alexander’s character, used them arbitrarily. Perhaps Plutarch
also made use of a collection of Antipater’s correspondence (Hamilton 1961: 11),
given that he cites letters to or from Antipater seven times.21 Though some letters
may have been based on original correspondence, it is likely that by the time they
reached Plutarch, they had been tainted by later authors or editors. All private letters
must be regarded with suspicion (Tarn 1948-50), since it would be improbable that
any compiler visited libraries in various locations throughout Alexander’s empire or
had special access to individuals’ collections. Finally, some original letters may have
been intended for propaganda purposes, which immediately negates their authenticity
(Tarn 1948-50: 301).
In general, Pearson’s principle (1954-55: 447), that ‘a letter which serves a purpose,
whether to vindicate Alexander or to ridicule him, or which contradicts the existing
historical accounts must be open to suspicion’ is sound. Using this view, Alexander’s
furtive letter to his mother (Alex. 27) may be considered genuine. Conversely, his
letter to Aristotle (Alex. 7) may be dismissed as a later creation. Several letters are
quoted by Plutarch to disprove popular theories, suggesting that they are forgeries
(Hamilton 1961: 13). The letters derive from periods in which significant events
occurred, and this is precisely why Plutarch quotes them. As Hamilton (1961: 9, 19)
demonstrates, many letters can be considered neither genuine nor complete
fabrications. One letter (Alex. 55), to Attalus, Alcetus and Craterus, has been
21 Chapters 20, 39 (two letters), 46, 47, 55, 57.
examined in detail, yet no definite verdict has been reached.22 Alexander’s letter to
Darius (Alex. 29) also appears in Arrian (2.14), and Hamilton (1961: 14) assumes that
Plutarch has consulted a historical source, as he probably does elsewhere, in this case
Aristobulus. The picture painted of Plutarch’s letters from the select few examples
certainly does not inspire the verdict that they were authentic historical documents.
Powell’s idea of Plutarch using a ‘variorum’ source for all of his information (Powell
1939: 30) has been refuted by Tarn (1948-50: 307). It is more likely that Plutarch
used a compendium professing to contain Alexander’s letters, as was fashionable in
his day. Bosworth (1988: 299) makes an excellent case, stating that ‘compilations of
the purported letters of Alexander were in vogue in the Hellenistic period’, while
Brunt (1976: xxvii) believes that Plutarch’s letters ‘came from one collection.’
Pearson’s conclusion (1954-55: 454) that ‘letters were fabricated… and… came to be
taken as genuine by the less careful historians’ is similar to Bosworth’s. He
additionally asserts that ‘several separate collections were current.’ Tarn agrees that
Plutarch possessed Alexandrian compilations (1948-50: 300). In this light, the
Antipater letters deserve a closer look. Hamilton (1961: 11) believes that Plutarch
may have ‘had before him a separate collection of Antipater’s correspondence’, which
was published by Antipater’s son-in-law, Antigonus Gonatas. Tarn (Tarn 1948-50:
301) goes further and insinuates that letters to or from Antipater and Olympias, forged
or otherwise, would have been immensely useful in the propaganda war of 317 BC.
Genuine letters were at the mercy of those who needed evidence to support their
policies. The view may be proposed that, like the journal, a published collection of
Antipater’s letters was ‘a standard propaganda weapon’ (Bosworth 1971: 22-3).
22 Hamilton 1961: 16; Pearson 1948-50: 446; Tarn 1948-50: 301.
Though published after Antipater’s death, it could have served Cassander’s purpose
admirably (Tarn 1948-50: 302).
Unfortunately, there is simply insufficient evidence to be able to form a definitive
opinion on the journal and the letters. It can only be reiterated that neither can be
regarded as authentic historical documents until the originals, or at least copies of
them, can be produced. Until then, we may conjecture that the journal, which may
have been imitated or embellished by later authors, originated in the aftermath of
Alexander’s death, as propaganda designed to exonerate important Macedonians from
accusations of treachery and that the letters, some of which may have once had a basis
in truth, were derived from a Hellenistic anthology and possibly a collection of
Antipater’s letters.
Ancient Sources
Aelian (trans. N.G. Wilson). 1997. Historical Miscellany, Harvard University Press:
Cambridge, MA.
Arrian (trans. P.A. Brunt). 1976. Anabasis of Alexander I, William Heinemann:
Arrian (trans. P.A. Brunt). 1976. Anabasis of Alexander II, William Heinemann:
Arrian (trans. A. de Sélincourt). 1971. The Campaigns of Alexander, Penguin Books:
Athenaeus (trans. C.B. Gulick). 1930. The Deipnosophists IV, William Heinemann:
Athenaeus (trans. S.D. Olson). 2006. The Learned Banqueters I, Harvard University
Press: Cambridge.
Callisthenes (trans. R. Stoneman). 1991. The Greek Alexander Romance, Penguin
Books: London.
Diodorus (trans. C. B. Welles). 1963. Diodorus of Sicily VIII, William Heinemann:
Justin (trans. J.C. Yardley), Epitome of the Philippic History of Pompeius Trogus,
Clarendon Press: Oxford.
Plutarch (trans. I. Scott-Kilvert). 1973. The Age of Alexander, Penguin Books:
Plutarch (trans. B. Perrin). 1971. Plutarch’s Lives VII, William Heinemann: London.
Plutarch (trans. B. Perrin). 1969. Plutarch’s Lives VIII, William Heinemann: London.
Plutarch (trans. P.A. Clement). 1927. Moralia VIII, William Heinemann: London.
Quintus Curtius Rufus (trans. J.C. Rolfe). 1946. Curtius Rufus, William Heinemann:
Modern Sources
Anson, A. 1996. ‘The Ephemerides of Alexander the Great’, Historia 45: 501-4.
Badian, E. 1987. ‘The Ring and the Book’, Zu Alexander d. Gr., vol. 1: 605-25.
Baynham, E. 1998. Alexander the Great: The Unique History of Quintus Curtius, Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Baynham, E. in Roisman, J. (ed.). 2003. Brill’s Companion to Alexander the Great,
Boston: Brill.
Bosworth, A.B. 1971. ‘The Death of Alexander the Great: Rumour and Propaganda’,
Classical Quarterly 21.1: 112-36.
Bosworth, A.B. 1988. Conquest and Empire: the Reign of Alexander the Great,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bosworth, A.B. 1988. From Arrian to Alexander, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hamilton, J.R. 1961. ‘The Letters in Plutarch’s Alexander’, Proceedings of the
African Classical Association 4: 9-20.
Hammond, N.G.L. 1972. A History of Macedonia III, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hammond, N.G.L. 1983. Three Historians of Alexander the Great: The So-called
Vulgate Authors, Diodorus, Justin, and Curtius, Cambridge: Cambridge University
Hammond, N.G.L. 1988. ‘The Royal Journal of Alexander’, Historia 37: 129-50.
Hammond, N.G.L. 1991. ‘A Note on Royal Journals’, Historia 40.3: 382-4.
Pearson, L. 1954-55. ‘The Diary and the Letters of Alexander the Great’, Historia 3:
Powell, J.E. 1939. ‘The Sources of Plutarch’s Alexander’, Journal of Hellenic Studies,
59.2: 229-40.
Samuel, A.E. 1965. ‘Alexander’s “Royal Journals”’, Historia 14: 1-12.
Tarn, W.W. 1948-50. Alexander the Great, vol. 2, Cambridge: Cambridge University

ANCH2030: Myth, Magic & Religion Primary Source Readings
In the event of a discrepancy between this syllabus and the Electronic Course Profile, the
Electronic Course Profile shall take precedence (consult
Required Ancient (Primary) Sources (you may consult another translation)
Homer (trans. R. Fagles). 2006. The Odyssey, London: Penguin.
Euripides (trans. P. Roche). 1974. Three Plays of Euripides: Alcestis, Medea, The Bacchae,
New York: W.W. Norton.
Aristophanes, Thesmophoriazusae (trans. D. Barrett), as The Poet and the Women in
Aristophanes: The Wasps, The Poet and the Women, The Frogs. 1964. London: Penguin.
Virgil (trans. D. West). 1990. Aeneid, London: Penguin.
Anthology of Classical Myth (trans. and ed. S.M. Trzaskoma, R.S. Smith & S. Brunet).
2004. Indianapolis: Hackett. Also 2nd ed., 2016. Contains Hesiod, Theogony etc.
Recommended Ancient (Primary) Sources & Sourcebooks in Translation
Betz, H.D., ed. and trans. 1992. The Greek Magical Papyri in Translation. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Beard, M., North, J., Price, S. 1998. Religions of Rome, Vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Evelyn-White, H.G., trans. 1964. Hesiod, the Homeric Hymns and Homerica, Loeb Classical
Library. London: Heinemann.
Foley, H.P., trans. 1994. The Homeric Hymn to Demeter: Translation, commentary, and
interpretive essays. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Green, P., trans. 1997. Apollonius: The Argonautika. Berkeley: University of California
Harmon, A.M. 1996. Lucian, Loeb Classical Library. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard
University Press.
Jones, W.H.S., Ormerod, H.A., & Wycherley, R.E. 1955. Pausanias: Description of Greece,
Loeb Reprint. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Kearns, E. 2009. Ancient Greek Religion: A Sourcebook. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kenney, E.J. 1998. Apuleius: The Golden Ass, or, Metamorphoses. London: Penguin Books.
Kiley, M.C. 1997. Prayer from Alexander to Constantine: A Critical Anthology. London:
Kockelmann, H. 2008. Praising the Goddess: A Comparative and Annotated Re-edition of
Six Demotic Hymns and Praises addressed to Isis. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Lefkowitz, M.R., & Fant, M.B. 1992. Women’s Life in Greece & Rome: A Source Book in
Translation, 2nd ed. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Lewis, N., & Reinhold, M. 1990. Roman Civilisation, 2 vols., 3rd ed. New York.
ANCH2030: Myth, Magic & Religion Primary Source Readings
In the event of a discrepancy between this syllabus and the Electronic Course Profile, the
Electronic Course Profile shall take precedence (consult
López-Ruiz, C. 2013. Gods, Heroes, and Monsters: A Sourcebook of Greek, Roman, and
Near Eastern Myths in Translation. Oxford.
Luck, G. 1985. Arcana mundi: Magic and the occult in the Greek and Roman worlds: A
collection of ancient texts. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Meyer, M.W. 1987. The Ancient Mysteries: A Sourcebook: Sacred texts of the mystery
religions of the ancient Mediterranean world, San Francisco: Harper & Row.
Ogden, D. 2002. Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A
Sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Parkin, T.G. & Pomeroy, A.J. 2007. Roman Social History: A Sourcebook. London.
Scott-Kilvert, I. 1983. Plutarch: The Age of Alexander: Nine Greek Lives. Harmondsworth:
Penguin Books.
Simpson, M. 2001. The Metamorphoses of Ovid. Amherst: University of Massachusetts
Simpson, M., & Baskin, L. 1976. Gods and Heroes of the Greeks: The Library of
Apollodorus. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
Smith, R.S., and S.M. Trzaskoma, Trans. 2007. Apollodorus’ Library and Hyginus’ Fabulae:
Two Handbooks of Greek Mythology, Indianapolis: Hackett Pub.
Walsh, P.G. 1970. The Roman Novel. The ‘Satyricon’ of Petronius and the ‘Metamorphoses’
of Apuleius. Cambridge: University Press.
Warner, R. 1972. Plutarch: Fall of the Roman Republic: Marius, Sulla, Crassus, Pompey,
Caesar, Cicero: Six lives (Revised ed., Penguin classics). Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Warre, C., Francis, Postgate, J.P., & Mackail, J.W. 1995. Catullus, Tibullus, Pervigilium
Veneris (2nd ed., Loeb Classical Library). Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Warrior, V.M. 2009. Greek Religion: A Sourcebook. Newburyport, Mass: Focus.
Valantasis, R., Ed. 2000. Religions of Late Antiquity in Practice, Princeton: Princeton
University Press.

Place Order
Grab A 14% Discount on This Paper
Pages (550 words)
Approximate price: -
Paper format
  • 275 words per page
  • 12 pt Arial/Times New Roman
  • Double line spacing
  • Any citation style (APA, MLA, Chicago/Turabian, Harvard)

Try it now!

Grab A 14% Discount on This Paper

Total price:

How it works?

Follow these simple steps to get your paper done

Place your order

Fill in the order form and provide all details of your assignment.

Proceed with the payment

Choose the payment system that suits you most.

Receive the final file

Once your paper is ready, we will email it to you.