MOCKING EPIC

Walthartus, Alexandreis
and the Problem
of Christian Heroism
SESE, EOE

DENNIS M. KRATZ
pjl4aiqny
fap ONILNVISNOD,
VIDUVS WIANVS Jy ‘urewo1 oyiereg eeTepee

i
‘sajden‘snp JeUOHeNO}OY4g 24puy ‘PIPH ‘sua|qnog
| “
JO LONGER PROPERTY OF
“RESCIA COLLEGE LIBRARY
ane se
f
t| ;

Visa908 ABM 4 6) oe
AGL 3OSUI00 ARERR
Mocking Epic
 *

José Porria Turanzas, S_A.

EDICIONES
Director General: Director:
Jos— PoRRUA VENERO CONSTANTINO GARCfA GARVIA

Sub-Director General: Asesor literario:

ENRIQUE PORRUA VENERO Bruno M. DAMIANI

scUuoia hMumanictacis
Directed by
BRUNO M. DAMIANI
The Catholic University of America

ADVISORY BOARD

JUAN BAuTISTA AVALLE-ARCE GIOVANNI FALLANI

University of North Carolina Musei Vaticani

THEODORE BEARDSLEY JOHN E. KELLER

The Hispanic Society of America University of Kentucky
GIOVANNI MaRIA BERTINI
RICHARD KINKADE
Universita di Torino
University of Connecticut
HEINRICH BIHLER
Universitat Gottingen JUAN M. Lope BLANCH
Universidad Nacional Auténoma
HAROLD CANNON de México
National Endowment
for the Humanities LELAND R. PHELPS
DANTE DELLA TERZA Duke University
Harvard University
MarTIN DE RIQUER
FREDERIC DELOFFRE Real Academia Espafola
Université de Paris-Sorbonne
JOSEPH SILVERMAN
RoBeRT J. DIPIETRO University of California
University of Delaware (Santa Cruz)
 Mocking Epic
Waltharius, Alexandreis
AND THE PROBLEM
OF CHRISTIAN HEROISM

BY
DENNIS M. KRATZ

stuoia hurmanitatis

BRESCIA COLLEGE LIBRARY

OWENSBORO, KENTUCKY.
PUBLISHER AND DISTRIBUTOR
José PorrtiaTuranzas, S. A.
Cea Bermudez, 10 - Madrid-3
ESPANA

NortTH AMERICAN DISTRIBUTION

1383 Kersey Lane
Potomac, Maryland 20854

© Dennis M. Kratz

Dep. legal M. 20.740.-1980

I. S. B. N. 84-7317-093-8

IMPRESO EN ESPANA
PRINTED IN SPAIN

Ediciones José Porrtia Turanzas, S. A.

Cea Bermudez, 10 - Madrid-3

TALLERES GRAFICOS PoRRUA, S. A.

José, 10 - Maprip-29
for ABBY ROBINSON KRATZ
car a son avis n’en est nulle pareille a elle

67698
 co"
¢5 ooa re
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

A portion of Chapter One appeared, in somewhat

different form, as «Aeneas or Christ? An Epic Parody
by Sedulius Scottus,» in Classical World Volume 69,
Number 5 (1976). The analysis of the Waltharius in
Chapter Two is a revised and expanded version of a
discussion which forms part of my essay «Quid Wal-
tharius Ruodliebque cum Christo?» in The Epic in Medie-
val Society, ed. Harald Scholler (Max Niemeyer Verlag:
Tiibingen, 1977). The translation from the Nibelungen-
lied at the beginning of Chapter Two is, slightly altered,
that of A. T. Hatto (Penguin Books: Baltimore, Mary-
land, 1970 [1965]).
The writing of this book was aided by a grant-in-aid
for research and an award of Assigned Research Duty
during 1976 by the College of Humanities of the Ohio
State University.
 YOUR
F.

7
xt 'HES i
ae ut D) Die Wei fier
@
ci tf
¥
‘nfl gaeee inh, ite ae tol tn eoltale.
— = -, ® - a)
‘ A i «apna enilehen (a :
S

' a
wit 501) 6 wlan 93
Ptr a3 4 | » 2 0 wt inlays dq se
anrie) sisidiye oooaaedt iy
4% x

4? ALD BDO ter

h ai cae =

ott iHh A rte AY

i 1) Vy. > I eas) q

Patmn att
((fa0k) MOL bass
} = —- ——- i
Aw oe “ is 5 S at

ij ‘ Pah tage) ~

j niu atiie

»
 Table of Contents
PAGE

ee. Aare en ee SNR ele POT Re Shee os xili

1. Ramifications of Epic Heroism ... ... ... .-. .+. +

2. Mocking the Hero: Walter of Aquitaine and the

iat IGT CE Ali ha nce I es USNs ooo BREE oa 15

3. Mocking Heroism: Alexander the Great and the

Pursuit Of GIOLy 25. coe ose one cel ere’ eee rane ones 61

CoNcLuSION: Irony and Christian Epic ... ... ... 1. + 157

APPENDIX: List of Editions ... ... 20. 00 see eee eee cee oes 167

FAINT RICAT: |NDE Xora wie. eh iene tela ceciefts re, icrunctnsite elev coe 169
 a

“sy:

vor

asa!
on 5 3
Ngo
llebf oot
¢&
G_ a« - ~

® z }

ee,
oe

9ae >
Ve
vig 2 ie - s
ep
. a aer ! GE J * ‘ las
m “att”
t : wiicish stqct Fo vivitedtowz 4
ehee
1
nay
oid ing. onietives io ostaW ae athahhhede ce
a Pteek Se Rae al ces ae ee
2 ait bo Ian ali av ZL, “statis avdook Pa
.
aio 7] We ize. j : .

=
=f
:
=

+ SES
;

eperigdd
? »

ban sel ‘smausone

J -

orth? ip a eh
-
Sap
;
ea
‘
ae
7 :
cot
ao & 4
ee 2 SE ser
 Preface

In the present period of growing appreciation for

medieval literature, the Latin epic poetry composed
between the ninth and twelfth centuries remains large-
ly ignored. There exists no comprehensive survey of
Christian Latin epic; and all too little has been written,
particularly in English, about specific poems. The
Waltharius, for example, has rightly been praised as
one of the finest literary monuments of the Carolin-
gian era; moreover, it has been the subject of a consid-
erable amount of discussion among German scholars;
but it has inspired no complete book and a mere hand-
ful of articles in English. The neglect of Walter of
Chatillon’s Alexandreis, despite the enormous popular-
ity and influence of that epic in the twelfth and thir-
teenth centuries, has been even more widespread. Not
since 1917 has a book been devoted to the poem, and
since then less than a half dozen studies of any con-
sequence have appeared. Indeed, the most recent
edition of the poem was published in 1863 and is not
now generally accessible. (Professor Marvin Colker’s
critical edition of the Alexandreis will fill this gap.)
Finally, as important as the neglect of these two poems
is the fact that the previous analyses of them, while
praiseworthy in many respects, have failed to make
clear their essential character.

— XIII —
 *

My primary goal in this book is the modest one

of explicating two works which I admire and which
I believe provide evidence of the continuing vitality of
the classical tradition in medieval Europe. Its begin-
ning lies in the question of how a medieval poet trans-
forms a classical literary genre into a vehicle for the
expression of a Christian theme. The idea of a compar-
ative study devoted to the Waltharius and Alexandreis
was first suggested by my discovery that their authors
had arrived independently at the same solution to this
problem; for both stress the inadequacy of the classical
epic tradition for the depiction of Christian virtue,
and both demonstrate that inadequacy by mocking
the apparent heroes of their narratives. In addition,
not only the nature but also the excellence of each
epic is more readily discerned when it is considered
beside the other.
Mocking Epic, then, explores one aspect of the
Christian response to the literary heritage of classical
antiquity. Its subject is the use of irony by two
gifted poets to create narratives which are at once
epic and Christian. The first chapter establishes a
definition of irony as criticism expressed in language
which seems to praise. The second and third chapters
are close readings, respectively, of the Waltharius and
Alexandreis. The former is shown to be an epic which
belittles the values of the Germanic heroic code as
founded on the sin of avarice; the latter attacks the
pursuit of worldly fame which Walter of Chatillon
regards as an essential component of the classical
concept of heroic virtus. In each case, my interpreta-
tion emerges from an analysis of the poet’s sustained
use of allusions to works of both classical and Christian
literature. A proper reading of the Waltharius depends
partly on our recognition of a series of interrelated
allusions to the Aeneid, the Bible, and Prudentius’
Psychomachia. The first clue to Walter’s negative

— AVE—
attitude toward Alexander the Great is to be found
in his use of Lucan’s Bellum Civile, which contains
a bitter denunciation of Alexander, as his primary epic
model. Walter’s attack upon the search for gloria to
which Alexander devotes his life is effected through
the carefully orchestrated use of references to Boethius’
De Consolatione Philosophiae. My concluding chapter
reviews the similarity in the solution of both poets
to the problem of adapting the epic tradition to
Christian purposes. In each poem, that solution lies
not in the celebration of the virtus of any individual,
but in the mockery of outmoded pagan heroic values.
It gives me pleasure to acknowledge the assistance
which has generously been offered to me as I was
preparing this book. I am especially grateful to Pro-
fessors Mark Morford, Charles Babcock, Carl Schlam,
and Stanley Kahr] for their constant support and sound
advice. I thank also my colleagues in The Ohio State
University’s Center for Medieval and Renaissance
Studies: no medievalist could have a more stimulating
or congenial forum for the sharing of ideas. Profes-
sors Francis Newton, Theodore Andersson, Janet
Martin, and F. P. Pickering have been kind enough
to consider my work on epic poetry and respond with
valuable suggestions. I was fortunate to begin my
study of medieval Latin literature under the guidance
of Professor Herbert Bloch, and to him I express my
deep and abiding appreciation. My greatest debt
—not only for her many perceptive comments and
criticisms which have made this book better, but also
for the patience, encouragement, and the gift of time
which made it possible—is joyfully acknowledged in
the dedication.
 ulead cn posh ‘ Le ‘ae hag
4- memasloee. Pte
zi¢aa by ‘er beantsa3 5oe
: e erie td bcawroly

9 AT ER ices i . Seg
ruts. each tags bana) Sat <¢ Shei
; a 7
Asaeh Dat thet,te, apie
ey aleres wh itenee
ag Sep le ag sole arabes

aieeee
pias) ; ne nt Metis 3 ates tala

stale stp ahh).ai

=e
ats
|
sala
4 re
rie taal £<cwitegh
Mag £7 3. SSce. act wR
his. —
“s4 $+) ’

+A ,
carb
sb aeagton
Fariat, tee ' if
a
¢t 2, r

£ >
drove aI

f iy: a yee wd. seagg

skie
Ts

45 aaf - Silber bone ane

i Say
4
5 3 = ee psd at aire ae

:
oa,
dea
4 | 2
m-th epider Agieat
Pianiies orapre ga etre a
ool ;
Soe
ia oe: Shara ub =
a nia dio, mT
se “fe fen = :
4 we

rating .
re re Thee 4
J
 RAMIFICATIONS OF EPIC HEROISM

oblitus erro-
... cogebar Aeneae nescio cuius errores,
m, quia
rum meorum, et plorare Didonem mortua
in his
se occidit ab amore, cum interea me ipsum
ferrem
a te morientem, deus, vita mea, siccis oculis
Quid enim miserius misero non mise-
miserrimus.
, quae
rante se ipsum et flente Didonis mortem
mortem
fiebat amando Aenean, non flente autem
lumen
suam, quae fiebat non amando te, deus,
et virtus
cordis mei et panis intus animae meae
ionis meae?
maritans mentem meam et sinum cogitat
Confessions 13

al literary
The attempts of medieval poets to use classic
often reveal an
genres for the expression of Christian values
e. Those author s, in
ambivalent attitude toward pagan cultur
in Latin model ed on the
particular, who composed epic poems
lled to face the inhere nt
Aeneid and its successors were compe
t of the epic hero and
conflict between the traditional concep
ing with this
the standards of Christian ethics. In grappl
a new defini tion of heroic virtue
problem many tried to forge
degree s of succes s, to reconcile
and managed, with varying
ts within the portra it of a single
classical and Christian elemen
works , howev er, the Walth arius and
protagonist (1). In two

concerning Charlemagne
(1) Examples include the panegyric epics
s et Leo Papa, s. 9), Henry IV (Carmen de Bello
(Karolus Magnu
and Freder ick Barba rossa (Ligur inus, s. 12). Of
Saxonico, s. 11), of this
(s. 11). For discussion
particular interest is the Ruodlieb
m, see Werner Braun, Studien
work as propounding Christian herois
my essay «Ruodlieb: Christian
zum Ruodlieb (Berlin, 1962), and

= ee
Alexandreis, a radically different approach is taen to resolve
the problem of transforming the epic into a Christian genre.
The essential nature of both epics has eluded modern critics,
who have rightly praised the poets’ skillful imitation of their
models but wrongly assumed their intention to be the celebra-
tion of heroic excellence; for although writing in very different
circumstances and three centuries apart, the two poets—a
ninth-century German monk and Walter of Chatillon, one
of best known poets in twelfth-century France—make similar
use of sustained irony to embed Christian meaning in their
narratives. In Walter of Aquitaine and Alexander the Great
each poem seems to possess a positive exemplar of virtus; but
a closer look at the poet’s subtle interweaving of classical and
Christian references reveals that his real purpose is to attack
the values associated with epic, and that the Christian theme
of each narrative lies in the mockery, not the praise of its
«hero.»

Criticism under the guise of praise is a form of irony, which

classical and medieval sources alike define in general as «saying
one thing but meaning another.» Quintilian discusses irony
under the heading of allegoria (Inst. Orat. 8.6.44: [allegoria]
aliud verbis aliud sensu ostendit), and asserts that in ironia the
meaning is the opposite of the words (8.6.54: quo contraria
ostenditur, ironia est). By employing irony the orator can
criticize under a pretense of praise or praise with simulated
blame (8.6.54: laudis adsimulatione detrahere et vituperationis
laudare concessum est). This two-fold use is preserved in
Isidore of Seville’s definition (Etymologiae 2.21.41):

ironia est, cum per simulationem diversum quam

dicit intellegi cupit; fit autem cum laudamus eum

Epic Hero,» Classical Folia 27, Number 2 (1973): 252-266. Among the
many works which deal with the general issue of the attitude of
Christianity toward classical literature are W. Krause, Die Stellung
der friihchristlichen Autoren zur heidnischen Literatur (Vienna,
1958), and H. Hagendahl, Latin Fathers and the Classics (Goteborg,
1958). Regarding Christian attacks on Aeneas, see Meyer Reinhold,
«The Unhero Aeneas,» Classica et Mediaevalia 27 (1966): 195-207,

aie
 quem vituperare volumus, aut vituperamus quem
laudare volumus; utriusque exemplum erit, si dicas
«amatorem reipublicae» Catilinam, «hostem reipu-
blicae» Scipionem.

In the Middle Ages as now, however, irony more often implied

criticism couched in laudatory words (laudamus eum quem
vituperare volumus). Cicero makes reference to the use of
irony to express sarcasm (Acad. Quaest. 2.5.15), the aspect of
the trope which is emphasized in the discussion by Donatus,
the fourth-century Roman grammarian whose Ars Grammatica
was enormously influential throughout the entire medieval
period. Although his definition allows for both types of irony
(3.6.30: ironia est tropus per contrarium quod conatur osten-
dens), the one example which he provides is the ironic reproach
which Juno addresses to Venus for her action in using Cupid
to inflame Dido with love for Aeneas (Aeneid 4.93-94: egre-
giam vero laudem et spolia ampla refertis /tuque puerque tuus).
Moreover, vituperatio is the only use for ironic language which
appears in a discussion found in the Rhetorica Antiqua by Bon-
compagno de Signa, a teacher of rhetoric and grammar at Bo-
logna in the early thirteenth century (2). He defines irony as
the use of words to convey disdain and ridicule (yronia enim
est plana et demulcens verborum positio cum indignatione
animi et subsannatione). To help his students he then provides
a series of illustrations, among them praising a lecher for his
chastity and a pauper for his riches (luxuriosum de castitate...
it
pauperem de divitiis); and he concludes with a reminder that
is nothing but mockery to commend the evil deeds of someone
through their opposite (nil aliud est vituperarium quam alicuius
malefacta per contrarium commendare) (3).
For evidence of the recognition in the Middle Ages of ironic

to
(2) The excerpt is edited by John F. Benton as an appendix
his essay «Clio and Venus: An Historical View of Medieval Love,»
1968),
in The Meaning of Courtly Love, ed. F. X. Newman (Albany,
Di Si. and
(3) For a useful discussion of the rhetorical theory of ironia

See al
 *

language in epic such as that cited from the Aeneid by Donatus

we can turn to the commentaries on Lucan’s De Bello Civili.
A gloss to 4.219 (ducibus quoque vita petita est?) explains that
this question is framed per ironiam. Of greater consequence is
the fact that commentators from the tenth century on regarded
the invocation to Nero at the beginning of the epic as mockery.
Through the twelfth century and beyond the interpretation that
Lucan means his apparent praise to be taken ironically is, if
not unanimous, predominant. The comments made by Arnulf
of Orleans (fl. 1200) that Lucan is speaking ironically and
derisively (sed hoc dicit oblique et derisorie...et hoc ironice)
are typical. Indeed, when there occurs in one twelfth-century
accessus the statement that the praise is sincere, a commentator
adds, rather unkindly, «recte autem intelligentibus hic laus est
vituperatio» (4).
It is fair to say, then, that there were medieval readers of
epic who were not insensitive to ironic language; moreover,
the evidence suggests that an author trained in rhetoric was
likely to be aware of the technique of wording praise so that
knowledgeable readers would recognize apparent Jaudatio as
actual vituperatio. The employment by the best medieval poets
of such veiled criticism, not only in isolated instances within a
narrative but also as a strategy pervading the entire work,
has in fact been gaining more and more attention in recent
years (5). To find an example in Latin literature of an ironic

its implications for medieval narrative, see D. H. Green, «On

Damning with Faint Praise in Medieval Literature,» Viator, Volume
6 (1975): 117-170.
(4) Adnotationes Super Lucanum, ed. I. Endt (Stuttgart, 1969
[1907]), p. 131. Berthe M. Marti discusses the commentaries in her
article «Lucan’s Invocation in the Light of the Medieval Com-
mentaries,» Quadrivium, 1 (1956): 7-18.
(5) The seminal work is D. W. Robertson, Jr., A Preface to
Chaucer (Princeton, 1962). See also D. H. Green, «Irony and Medie-
val Romance,» in Arthurian Romance, ed. D. D. R. Owen (New
York, 1972), pp. 49-64. On Chrétien de Troyes cf. the comments by
Owen, «Profanity and its Purpose in Chrétien’s Cliges and Lancelot,»
ibid., p. 39: «...most of his work has an ambivalent quality: he is
inclined to compose tongue-in-cheek, inviting us to take his story

ae coe
stance sustained through an entire poem we need look no
further, interestingly enough, than the satire missus sum in
vineam by Walter of Chatillon, the author of the Alexandreis.
In that poem Walter assumes the persona of a man who prefers
money and pleasure to knowledge. On the surface, its twenty
strophes comprise a denunciation of the pursuit of virtus in
general and the study of literature in particular (6. str. 5):

qui virtutes appetit, labitur in imum,

querens sapientiam irruit in limum;
imitetur igitur hec dicentem mimum:
o cives, cives, querenda pecunia primum.

Walter seems to counsel the neglect of wisdom, which brings

g
only ruin, and to exhort the reader, before he does anythin
else, to acquire wealth. But the poem is ironic. We have
here, in Witke’s apt phrase, a reverse satire; for Walter allows
expose
the persona to propound his views only in order to
opposit e
their absurdity and thus to evoke sympathy for the
depends
position. This is a sophisticated mode of satire, which
in such
in part upon the use of classical and Christian allusions
nt in which
a way as to undercut the meaning of the stateme
an educate d audienc e
they occur. As Witke has noted, it takes
will see that a similar
to appreciate Walter’s irony (6). We
only of
conclusion can be drawn concerning the mode not
Walthar ius, and concern ing
Walter’s Alexandreis but also of the
to enjoy the mocker y of heroic
the kind of audience needed
epic to be found in them.
very genre
The notion of a Latin epic poet criticizing the

it would be more fun if we

seriously if we wish, but hinting that
share the secret joke he is playin g on his heroes and hero-
- would
value too is Peter Haidu, Aesthe tic Distance in Chrétien
ines.» Of a,
» and «Perceval» (Genev
de Troyes: Irony and Comedy in «Cliges
, The Trista n of Gottfried von Strassburg:
1968), and R. G. Kunzer ‘
An Ironic Perspective (Berkeley, 1973). and of the role
of this poem
(6) For a detailed analysis both TheSatire:
satires, see Charles Witke, Latin
of irony in Walter’s
Structure of Persuasion (Leiden, 1970), pp. 233-266.

coat ee
which he is imitating is not unprecedented. “Christian epic
displayed from the beginning an antagonism toward the literary
tradition from which it sprang. Juvencus, the first Latin poet
to use epic as a vehicle for the presentation of Christian matter,
even offers an apologia for his decision to recount the story
of Christ in this manner. The passage deserves to be quoted
in full (Evang. praefatio 1-27):

immortale nihil mundi conpage tenetur,

non orbis, non regna hominum, non aurea Roma,
non maré, non tellus, non ignea sidera caeli.
nam statuit genitor rerum inrevocabile tempus,
quo cunctum torrens rapiat flamma ultima mundum.
sed tamen innumeros homines sublimia facta
et virtutis honos in tempora longa frequentant,
adcumulant quorum famam laudesque poetae.
hos celsi cantus, Smyrnae de fonte fluentes,
illos Minciadae celebrat dulcedo Maronis.
nec minor ipsorum discurrit gloria vatum,
quae manet aeternae similis, dum saecla volabunt
et vertigo poli terras atque aequora circum
aethera sidereum iusso moderamine volvet.
quod si tam longam meruerunt carmina famam,
quae veterum gestis hominum mendacia nectunt,
nobis certa fides aeternae in saecula laudis
immortale decus tribuet meritumque rependet.
nam mihi carmen erit Christi vitalia gesta,
divinum populis falsi sine crimine donum.
nec metus, ut mundi rapiant incendia secum
hoc opus; hoc etenim forsan me subtrahet igni
tunc, cum flammivoma descendet nube coruscans
iudex, altithroni genitoris gloria, Christus.
ergo age, sanctificus adsit mihi carminis auctor
spiritus, et puro mentem riget amne carentis
dulcis Jordanis, ut Christo digna loquamur.

Juvencus’ words serve a dual purpose. By praising Homer’s

lofty songs (celsi :cantus Smyrnae
y de fonte fluentes) and the
sweetness of Vergil (dulcedo Maronis), Juvencus announces his

pe es
intention to compose within the bounds of the epic genre. At
the same time, he is conscious of the superiority of his new
subject. The opening stress upon the impermanence of the
created universe (inmortale nihil mundi conpage tenetur)
establishes the transitory nature of the glory which pagan epics
can achieve (gloria vatum); for though such praise may have the
appearance of permanence (aeternae similis), the next phrase
(dum saecla volabunt) reminds us of its connection with the
ephemeral world. In contrast to the transitory fame gained
by celebrating the deeds of men (veterum gestis hominum),
Juvencus will gain eternal praise (nobis certa fides aeternae in
saecula laudis/immortale decus tribuet) by celebrating the living
deeds of Christ (Christi vitalia gesta). Those deeds are both
«living» and «life giving,» for telling them will perhaps save
Juvencus at the Last Judgment. The work at least will escape
the flames, as the lies (mendacia) of the Aeneid surely will
not. Juvencus concludes the preface on a note to which we
will return, a contrast between the true glory (altithroni geni-
toris gloria) with which epic poetry should be concerned and
the lesser glory won by poets (gloria vatum) who celebrate
earthly achievements. His apologia complete, the poet can
now offer a Christian version of the epic invocation (sanctifi-
cus adsit mihi carminis auctor/spiritus) and proceed with his
narrative (7).
In addition to such direct criticism, Latin epic generated
parodies of itself; and among the burlesques of the tradition
is a delightful short poem, composed in the mid-ninth century
by Sedulius Scottus, which draws its humor from the difficulty
of creating a protagonist who is at once a «Christian» and an
«epic» hero (8). In this narrative, generally referred to as the

an poets with the

(7) A discussion of the concern of Christi
in Barbara Lewalski,
propriety of using the epic genre appears
the issue is treated with
Milton’s Brief Epic (Providence, R. I., 1966);
n Smith, Prudent ius’ Psycho machia: a Reexami-
insight in Mackli
nation (Princeton, 1976).
of Orleans’ De Pugna
(8) Two other brief parodies are Theodulf
oming in Latomus, and
Avium, which I discuss in an essay forthc

ae ee
De Quodam Verbece, we will see at work some of the same
undercutting techniques employed in the Waltharius and Alex-
andreis.
The story concerns a ram who is set upon and eventually
killed by a pack of dogs. In a sense, Sedulius has produced
a gruesome comedy of errors, for the dogs attack the ram under
the mistaken impression that he is the accomplice of a robber
who has just victimized them. Although outnumbered, the ram
at first stands his ground and even puts the dogs momentarily
to flight. In true epic fashion he then delivers a speech not
only proclaiming his innocence but also swearing a mighty
oath—on his head, his horns, and his proud forehead (73-74:
per caput hoc iuro, per cornua perque superbam/hanc frontem
vobis)—to defeat the attackers if they persist against him.
Although the other dogs seem convinced, their leader, Cerberus
by name, arouses them to renew the fray. In this battle also the
ram gains a momentary advantage; however, incautious with
success, he gets tangled in some thorn-bushes and is killed by
Cerberus.
The scene outlined above clearly is intended as a parody
of an epic combat. Sedulius employs not only the themes but
also the language of the Latin epic tradition. One passage, for
example, crams into three lines variations on «noise» topoi
(54-56) (9):

ingens fit strepitus, fit sonus atque fragor;

oribus et rapidis furem furtumque requirit:
frondea silva latrat, personat omne nemus.

Sedulius has, moreover, sprinkled his narrative with allusions

an anonymous poem from the eleventh century entitled Altercatio

Nani et Leporis. See also my «Aeneas or Christ? -An Epic Parody
=A Se ee Scottus,» Classical World, Volume 69, Number 5 (1976):

(9) For a discussion of these topoi and their integration

into
conventional epic battle scenes, see Pierre-Jean Miniconi, Index
des
thémes ’guerriers’ de la poesie epique latine (Paris, 1951).

a ae
specifically to the Aeneid. Consider the beginning of the ram’s
speech to his pursuers (65-68):

«quis furor in vestris consurgit cordibus?» inquit,

«gnoscite me famulum praesulis Hartgarii.
non sum latro malus, non sum furunculus ille,
sed sum multo pius, dux gregis eximius.»

The multo is here a classical hero in animal skin whose words

sum multo pius could hardly fail to call Aeneas to mind
(Aeneid 1.378: sum pius Aeneas). Moreover, the language
which Sedulius uses to describe the ram’s death is drawn from
the Aeneid (99-100):

labitur exanimis multo, mirabile visu

irrorans vepres sanguine purpureo.

Mirabile visu needs no explanation. Labitur exanimis purpu-

reo recalls the death of Arruns in the Aeneid (11.818-819):

labitur exsanguis, labuntur frigida leto

lumina, purpureus quondam color ora relinquit.

Finally, the phrase irrorans vepres sanguine is an echo of the

death of Tullus as depicted on the shield of Aeneas (8.645: et
sparsi rorabant sanguine vepres).
Side by side with these obvious Vergilian reminiscences,
however, Sedulius has placed allusions to the Bible which
suggest that the mzulto is meant to be a Christian martyr as well
as an epic hero. Are the briars sprinkled with blood meant also
m
to recall Christ’s crown of thorns (Matthew 27-29: corona
de spinis)? More certain is the Christian symbolism of the dogs
was
- who are the ram’s tormentors; for in Psalm 21, which
commonly interpreted as the prophetic express ion of Christ’s
as
words during the Passion, the Psalmist describes himself
circum dederu nt me canes
surrounded by dogs (Psalm 21.17:
of the
multi). Let us examine, moreover, Sedulius’ description
the ram’s death (43-48) :
actual robber who in effect caused

a?
 quidam latro fuit nequam de gente Goliae
Aethiopum similis, Cacus et arte malus,
terribilis forma vultu piceusque maligno,
asper erat factis, asper et eloquiis:
te, pie multo, tulit, manibus traxitque nefandis
per multos tribulos, heu nefas, o miserum.

The Jatro is from the race of Goliath (de gente Goliae); and
his blackness (Aethiopum similis, vultu piceusque maligno)
suggests him as a figure of the Devil. The notion of a robber’s
compelling the ram to undergo tribulations (te...traxit... / per
multos tribulos) implies that the entire narrative may be an
extended allusion to the parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke
10.29-37), which begins «a man was going down from Jeru-
salem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers (incidit in latro-
nes).» Sedulius strengthens this implication by beginning the
description of the ram’s entanglement in the thorn-bushes—the
immediate cause of his death—with the words incidit in tri-
bulos (10). .
Further Christian coloring occurs in the planctus (105-132)
which follows the narrative. There Sedulius addresses the ram
in terms more appropriate to a martyr than to a fallen warrior.
The ram is simplex, sine fraude maligna (105). He is not
avaricious, but content with plain food, drink, and clothing;
nor is he proud (113-114):

nonque superbus equo lustrabat amoena virecta,

sed propriis pedibus rite migrabat iter.

To define his humility in terms of walking instead of riding

may at first seem odd, since rams so rarely ride horses anyway;
but the line of course is a reference (humorous in its incon-

(10) St. Jerome, Commentarioli in Psalmos: in ps. xxi. 2, Corpus

Christianorum, Series Latina 72 (Turnholt, 1967), p. 198; see James
Marrow, «Circumdederunt me canes multi: Christ’s Tormentors in
Northern European Art of the Late Middle Ages and Early Renaiss-
ance,» The Art Bulletin, Volume 59, Number 2 (1977): 167-181.

anise
gruity?) to the conventional image of Superbia on her horse as
depicted in the Psychomachia (178-181). There follow, at
any rate, two explicit comparisons of the ram with Christ
(117-122):

agnus ut altithronus pro peccatoribus acrem

gustavit mortem filius ipse dei
carpens mortis iter canibus laceratus iniquis
pro latrone malo sic, pie multo, peris
quomodo pro Isaac aries sacer hostia factus:
sic tu pro misero victima grata manes.

The first simile compares the death of the ram to that of Christ.
The second makes use of the common typological reference of
the ram sacrificed in place of Isaac. Sedulius concludes the
planctus with a reminder that Christ forgave a Jatro while
suffering on the cross, thus drawing our attention back to
Christ as the teller of the parable of the Good Samaritan.
In addition to including in his portrait of the ram elements
which are identifiably either Christian or classical, Sedulius
makes use of purposefully ambiguous allusions. I have mention-
ed, for example, the two possible reminiscences of the phrase
irrorans vepres sanguine; and while the dogs may be easily
understood as Christ’s tormentors, nevertheless they have names
drawn from pagan mythology: the leader is Cerberus, and
the phrase Cacus et arte malus is meant also to evoke the
monster whom Hercules defeats. Even more significant is the
ambiguous mingling of epic and Biblical references in the
description of the ram himself. In one instance Sedulius is
guilty of contradictory statements about his hero; for although
in the planctus Sedulius praises his humility, earlier the ram
had sworn an oath per superbam hanc frontem. Moreover,
the adjective pius, which Sedulius applies five times to the
ram, reinforces the ambiguity. The use of piws in the phrase
sum multo pius (68) without question links the heroic ram to
Aeneas. The furor which earlier in the same speech the ram
attributes to his enemies (65: quis furor in vestris consurgit
cordibus?) even recalls the basic pietas/furor dichotomy of the
a en
Aeneid. On the other hand, the phrase sic, pie’ multo, peris
(120) can have nothing to do with Aeneas, sandwiched as it is
by the two explicit comparisons of the ram with Christ.
A sometimes self-contradictory amalgam of classical and
Christian elements, the ulto pius is an animal version of
Walter of Aquitaine and Alexander the Great; and Sedulius’
poem works on much the same kind of irony which we will
see in the Waltharius and Alexandreis. The ram is set up as
a heroic figure, but inconsistencies within the portrait alert
the careful reader to the possibilities of a concealed purpose.
That purpose is ridicule. The ram is, in part, an alter Aeneas;
he is, in part, another Christ; in the end he is, completely,
dinner (133-140):

tu, bone multo, vale, nivei gregis inclite ductor,

heu quia nec vivum te meus hortus habet.
forsan, amice, tibi fieret calidumque lavacrum—
non alia causa, iure sed hospitii;
ipse ministrassem devoto pectore limphas
cornigero capiti, calcibus atque tuis
te (fateor) cupii; viduam matremque cupisco
fratres atque tuos semper amabo. vale.

The whole poem, we now realize, is in praise of the main

course of a meal. The statement of love and desire at the end
of the planctus (te...cupii...cupisco / ...semper amabo) reflects
the language with which Sedulius had lauded the ram at the
beginning of the «epic» (15-16):

iuro per digitos, quod in hoc non mentior umquam:

tales quod cupio, diligo, semper amo.

The fingers on which Sedulius is swearing his oath are holding

the roasted meat! Our knowledge now of this fact casts a
mocking light on the ram’s heroic declaration of victory over
the dogs (73: per caput hoc iuro). I need hardly add that the
love which Sedulius declares is carnal.
Sedulius, then, has exploited the problem of portraying a

mn Phe
Christian hero without attacking the concept itself. The De
Quodam Verbece is a sustained ironic narrative which sets up
the ram first as a hero then as a martyr only to undercut that
portrait by revealing him as dinner; but Sedulius offers no
message beyond a warning against underestimating his clever-
ness. For mockery with a more serious goal we must now
turn to the Waltharius.

ae
 9 hae
ou pe
igaesayia. ‘eg
tet srueal a, al ‘Yow rr oy 8
 MOCKING THE HERO: WALTER OF AQUITAINE
AND THE SIN OF GREED

Des antwurte Hiltbrant:

«zwiu verwizet ir mir daz?
na wer was, der tfem schilde
vor dem Wasgensteine saz,
d6é im von Spanje Walther
sO vil der mage sluoc?
ouch habt ir noch ze zeigen
an iu selben genuoc.»
(Hildebrand replied: «Why do you reproach me with
that? Who sat on his shield below the Waskenstein
while Walter of Spain slew so many of his kinsmen?
You yourself are not above reproach.»)
Nibelungenlied 2281

As can be said about Carolingian culture in general, the

Waltharius is a mixture of three main elements—Germanic,
Christian, and classical. Its story and characters are drawn
from the same body of legends which was to produce the
Nibelungenlied. Indeed, the Nibelungenlied contains three
separate references to events recounted in the Waltharius—two
of
to the time which Walter and Hagen spend in the service
Attila (1756: canto 28; 1797: canto 29) and one to Hagen’s
initial refusal to fight against Walter at Waskenstein (2281:
a
canto 39). The extent to which that legend is turned into
Christian tale is a matter of consider able dispute for which this
chapter provides the solution. For the moment it is enough
a
to say that the poem was almost certainly composed by
line is addresse d to his fratres, and that
monk, since the first
it concludes with a Christian prayer (1456):
ar
Ee ee
 haec est Waltharii poesis. vos salvet Tesus.

As for the classical element, the author of the Waltharius

clearly saw himself as a continuator of the Latin epic tradition.
The narrative reveals his familiarity, in particular, with three
epics: the Aeneid, Thebaid and Psychomachia. Given this
three-part nature of the epic, I must raise the critical issue:
To what extent, if at all, was the poet able to weld these
disparate components into a unified and meaningful whole?
Although the question of the poet’s ability to reconcile
these three elements is in part responsible for the extensive
amount of criticism which the Waltharius has engendered over
the past century (1), uncertainty as to when and by whom it
was written has provided an equal incitement to research and
controversy. I take the position that the Waltharius was
composed in the mid-ninth century, and my inclination is to
accept the claim of authorship which a certain Gerald advances
in a 22-line preface to the epic. If, as may be the case, Gerald
was not the monk who composed the epic, we must at least
grant him, I will show, the honor of being the first critic to
perceive the true nature of this remarkable narrative (2).

(1) For a survey of Waltharius criticism. see Otto Schumann,

«Waltharius-Literatur seit 1926,» Anzeiger fiir deutsches Altertum 65
(1951-1952): 13-41; a full bibliography anda collection of important es-
says be found in Emil Ernst Ploss, ed., Waltharius und Walthersage:
Eine Dokumentation der Forschung (Hildesheim, 1969). Recent studies
not included in either of the bibliographic surveys mentioned above
are as follows: Peter Dronke, «Functions of Classical Borrowing in
Medieval Latin,» in R. R. Bolgar, ed., Classical Influences on
European Culture: AD 500-900 (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 159-164; Karl
Langosch, Waltharius: Die Dichtung und die Forschung (Darmstadt,
1973); Rosemarie Katscher, «Waltharius—Dichtung und _ Dichter,»
Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 9 (1976): 48-120; Theodore Andersson,
Early Epic Scenery (Ithaca, N. Y., 1976), pp. 131-144; and my «Quid
Waltharius Ruoliebque cum Christo?» in Harald Scholler, ed., The
Epic in Medieval Society (Tiibingen, 1977), pp. 126-149.
(2) On this issue see Langosch, op. cit. Basic studies are by
Jacob Grimm and Andreas Schmeller, Lateinische Gedichte des X.
und XI Jahrhunderts (Géttingen, 1838); Rudolf Reeh, «Zur Frage
nach dem Verfasser des Walthariliedes,» Zeitschrift fiir deutsche

a fries
 directed at
Two issues have long dominated the criticism
’s skill in recreating
the Waltharius as a work of art: Gerald
, if at all, he has created
the epic genre and the degree to which
On the first issue there is
an epic which is Christian in spirit.
d still evoke s argum ent.
now general agreement; but the secon
y Christian (3).
Some find the poem to be essentially, even totall

er, ed., Waltharius (Berlin,

Philologie 51 (1926): 413-431; Karl Streck
Schum ann, «Zum Waltharius,» Zeitschrift fir
1947), pp. 7-20; Otto
(1951): 30-35; Wolfr am von den Steinen, «Der
deutsches Altertum 83
84 (1952): 1-47.
Waltharius und sein Dichter, ZfdA
rius was composed in the
It was once assumed that the Waltha
identification of Ekkehard as
tenth century by Ekkehard I. The
was first offere d by Grimm on the basis of a statement by
the poet
in the eleven th centur y chroni cle Casus s. Galli, that
Ekkehard IV, composed an exercise
the earlier Ekkeh ard had
while a schoolboy he revised
had then
vitam Waltharii manu fortis, which
entitled by Reeh, who sug-
and polished. This view was first challenged
a 22-line dedication to a Pontifex
gested that Gerald, the author of
which preced es the poem in several manuscripts, was
Erkam bald
author of the epic. Reeh, howev er, agreed with the tenth
also the
since he identi fied Erkam bald with the man of that
century dating, 965-991. To Strecker
at Strass burg from
name who was bishop In his 1947 edition of
sing a new date.
belongs the credit for propo the poem was com-
eviden ce that
the Waltharius he offered strong
gh he rejected Gerald as the
posed in the ninth century, althou
Waltharius as a product of the
author. Since then, the idea of the
y has gained wide accept ance. Schumann, for example,
ninth centur classical and Christian
the author quotes many
showed that while 900. He argued that
is to an author later than
sources, no citation since he accepted Gerald
is most likely,
a late ninth-century date in Eichstatt from
bald as a bishop
as the poet and identified Erkam
the other hand, would place the
ca. 880-912. Von den Steinen, on His argument for an
i 835-860.
epic sometime between the termin partly on certain weak-
in the ninth centur y is based
earlier date
Erkambald of Eichstatt and partly
nesses in Schumann’s case for
s histor ical references within the poem—
on the nature of variou
of Metz as a metropolis and Chalon as the
especially the designation
The contro versy still rages; but attempts to
capital of Burgundy. y and/or to disprove
ninth centur
place the poem later than the
claim to author ship are not convincing. Two recent efforts
Gerald’s
«Geraldus und St. Gallen—Zum
of this sort are Dieter Schaller,
des Waltha rius,» Mittellateinisches Jahrbuch 2
Widmungsgedicht Die Verfasserfrage des
Hedwi g Kramm er,
(1965): 74-84; an d
Waltharius (Vienna, 1973).
offered by Hennig Brinkmann,
(3) This interpretation was first che
hards Walth arius als Kunst werk,» Zeitschrift fiir deuts
«Ekke

83 1.| Brescia College Library

698 \y On me enn Manticky
Others contend that the Christian references in*the poem are
inconsequential, and at least one critic has proclaimed the ethos
of the Waltharius to be «hardly Christian at all» (4). An
important recent development in Waltharius studies has been
a growing appreciation of the poem’s comic aspects (5). We
will see, however, that humor through the use of mockery and
irony, for from being a peripheral element of Gerald’s epic
technique, is in fact central to the design and Christian meaning
of his narrative.
Gerald’s mocking sense of humor is apparent even in his
imitation of his epic models. That the Waltharius is conceived
as a part of the continuum of the Latin epic tradition is
indisputable. Gerald’s language is rich in borrowings from
the Aeneid and Thebaid, and the influence of Prudentius cannot
be overemphasized. More important, Gerald demonstrates his
knowledge, not just of specific models, but of the conventions
of form and content associated more generally with the genre
itself. It is interesting to note, though the fact has been

Bildung 43 (1928): 625-636. It is accepted by, among others,

Schumann, von den Steinen, and Katscher.
(4) This view, first argued by Grimm, has recently been seconded
by George F. Jones, «The Ethos of the Waltharius,» in Middle Ages,
Reformation, Volkskunde: Festschrift for John G. Kunstmann
(Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1959), pp. 1-20; he writes (p. 7) «In
view of ... the apparent superficiality of the Christian elements in
the poem, I cannot agree with von den Steinen when he says that
the Waltharius is entirely Christian even if not monastic in any one
trait. Perhaps it would be better to say that the poem is monastic
in many traits but hardly Christian at all.» For a similar assump-
tion that the Waltharius is at best only superficially Christian, see
Michael Cherniss, Ingeld and Christ (The Hague, 1972), esp. pp.
122-123. For an unfortunate example of the influence of the notion
that the poem was the exercise of a school boy, consider the remark
by Bernard F. Huppé, «The Concept of the Hero in the Early
Middle Ages,» in Concepts of the Hero in the Middle Ages and
the Renaissance, ed. Norman T. Burns and Christopher J. Regan
(Albany, N. Y., 1975), p. 1: «... the Waltharius is an academic exercise
which cannot seriously be considered as a work of art.»
(5) See Dronke, op. cit.; F. P. Pickering, Augustinus oder
Boethius? II. Darstellender Band (Philologische Studien und
Quellen: Berlin, 1976), pp. 119-122; Katscher, op. cit., pp. 119-120.

pete
ignored by those who deny Gerald’s claim to authorship, that
while the narrative itself lacks the conventional invocation and
proposition, the preface contains both (prol. 1-4...17-18). In
examining Gerald’s imitatio I will look specifically at one simile
which is representative of his careful artistry, at his handling
of battle scenes, and at his description of a banquet.
Of the eight similes which occur in the Waltharius, the
last and longest shows Gerald’s skill to its fullest advantage
(1337-1343):

haud aliter, Numidus quam dum venabitur ursus

et canibus circumdatus astat et artubus horret
et caput occultans submurmurat ac propiantes
amplexans Umbros miserum mutire coartat,
—tum rabidi cirmumlatrant hince inde Molossi
comminus ac dirae metuunt accedere belvae—,
taliter in nonam conflictus fluxerat horam.

by dogs
This comparison of Walter to a wild bear surrounded
fights
emphasizes the desperate situation of the hero as he
against Hagen and Gunther. The apparent source for the simile
ed
is Vergil’s comparison of Mezentius to a wild boar harass
e too near
by hunting dogs who nonetheless are afraid to ventur
in
the angered beast (Aeneid 10.707-715). However, the image
in the Aeneid ,
the Waltharius includes the picture, not found
(canibu s circum datus) .
of the wild beast surrounded by dogs
same image of Christ’ s
Gerald is playing, of course, on the
s alludes ; but the irony of
tormentors as dogs to which Seduliu
narrative
any linking of Walter to Christ at this point in the
add, finally, that in compos ing
will soon be clear. I would
to have had the Thebai d in mind.
this simile Gerald seems also
Eteocles and
In Statius’ epic, the climactic battle in which
contain s a simile likenin g the two
Polynices kill each other
(11.53 0-538) . The image of the two
brothers to enraged boars
combat signals the fulfill ment of a
animals locked in mortal
bulls fighting
prophetic vision in which a Bacchant sees two
occurs in the
to the death (4.396-400). The same pattern
simile serves
Waltharius, for there too the animal image of the
eae, $0) as
to fulfill the symbolic language of a prophetic vision. That
prophecy is a dream in which Hagen sees a bear rip out his eye
and some teeth after it has bitten off Gunther’s leg (617-627):
tunc Hagano ad regem: «porrectam suscipe gazam,
hac potis es decorare, pater, tecum comitantes,
et modo de pugna palmam revocare memento.
ignotus tibi Waltharius et maxima virtus.
ut mihi praeterita portendit visio nocte,
non, si conserimus, nos prospera cuncta sequentur.
visum quippe mihi te colluctarier urso,
qui post conflictus longos tibi mordicus unum
crus cum poplite ad usque femur decerpserat omne
et mox auxilio subeuntem ac tela ferentem
me petit atque oculum cum dentibus eruit unum.»

Such indeed will be the outcome of the struggle. Gerald under-

scores the connection between the wounds inflicted by the
«bear» and those about to be inflicted by Walter when he
concludes the simile with a reference to the length of the combat
(in nonam conflictus fluxerat horam), thus picking up Hagen’s
reference to the long struggle (post conflictus longos) before
the bear prevailed. Gerald, then, has imaginatively taken an
image from the Aeneid, changed the animal involved, added a
pertinent Biblical allusion, and made the recurrence of the
imagery of a vision in the simile resemble the pattern found in
the Thebaid. The artistry is admirable; and Gerald’s decision
to reinforce the correctness and importance of Hagen’s vision
with an extended simile provokes a question of no little im-
portance: Why is the poet so insistent upon our foreknowledge
of the result, or part of the result, of the climactic battle of
his epic?
Scenes of fighting are an important part of the Waltharius
and illustrate Gerald’s broad based approach to imitation.
Consider the first description of the advancing Hunnish army
(40-63): : E
 namque Avares firma cum Francis pace peracta
suspendunt a fine quidem regionis eorum.
Attila sed celeres mox huc deflectit habenas,
nec tardant relique satrapae vestigia adire.
ibant aequati numero, sed et agmine longo,
quadrupedum cursu tellus concussa gemebat.
scutorum sonitu pavidus superintonat aether.
ferrea silva micat totos rutilando per agros:
haud aliter primo quam pulsans aequora mane
pulcher in extremis renitet sol partibus orbis.
iamque Ararim Rodanumque amnes transiverat altos
atque ad praedandum cuneus dispergitur omnis.
forte Cabillonis sedit Heriricus, et ecce
attollens oculos speculator vociferatur:
«quaenam condenso consurgit pulvere nubes?
vis inimica venit, portas iam claudite cunctas!»
iam tum, quid Franci fecissent, ipse sciebat
princeps et cunctos compellat sic seniores:
«si gens tam fortis, cui nos similare nequimus,
cessit Pannoniae, qua nos virtute putatis
huic conferre manum et patriam defendere dulcem?
est satius, pactum faciant censumque capessant.
unica nata mihi, quam tradere pro regione
non dubito; tantum pergant, qui foedera firment.»

first
The scene is carefully structured. Our attention is focused
. To emphas ize the might of
on Attila, who leads the advance
Gerald makes use of the topoi of the
the approaching force
«groaning earth» (tellus concussa gemebat) and the «resounding
of
sky» (superintonat aether). He then describes the glitter
state-
weapons in the sunlight (47-49) before offering a second
nt (50-51) . Gerald then changes the per-
ment of moveme
an of
spective from a panoramic view to that of the watchm
the army is
the besieged city, who sees the cloud of dust which
am conden so
raising (54-55). The device of the question (quaen
cloud
consurgit pulvere nubes?) and its connection with the
of dust are from the Aeneid (9.36-38):

a)
 quis globus, o cives, caligine volvitur*atra?
ferte citi ferrum, date tela, ascendite muros,
hostis adest, heia!

But whereas Vergil then describes the preparations for battle

within the Trojan camp, Gerald keeps his focus restricted to
the individual; for Prince Hereric then summons his advisers
and comes to a decision to submit to Attila. Legates are sent
to the Hun; and the scene concludes, as it began, with Attila,
the reentry of Attila serving as a transition to the next scene,
the subjugation of Aquitaine.
Two features of Gerald’s narrative technique are evident in
this brief scene. First, he alternates the viewpoint from which
the action is presented, and thus prevents the scene from
becoming static. Second, he narrows the focus of the action,
beginning with a panoramic view of the action and concluding
with the observations and reactions of a specific individual.
The next battle scene (170-214) has a similar design. When
report of a rebellious tribe reaches Attila, he turns the conduct
of affairs over to Walter, who musters the army. Upon reach-
ing the battle field, he deploys his force, and this deployment is
presented from his perspective (180: ecce locum pugnae con-
spexerat). Gerald then switches back to a panoramic view.
The fighting begins. Unlike the first scene, here weapons are
released, and to describe them Gerald again turns to common-
places from the epic tradition (185-189):

continuoque hastae volitant hinc indeque densae.

fraxinus et cornus ludum miscebat in unum,
fulminis inque modum cuspis vibrata micabat.
ac veluti boreae sub tempore nix glomerata
spargitur, haud aliter saevas iecere sagittas.

In this scene Gerald, always careful to vary his descriptions,

employs the glitter topos with regard to weapons in flight
rather than as part of the preparations for the fighting. The
comparison of flying missiles to a storm is another common-
place; the image of snow may come from the Aeneid (11.610-

pan ee
611: fundunt simul undique tela / crebra nivis ritu), but the use
of a simile to emphasize the storm of weapons has numerous
precedents (cf. Aeneid 9.668-671 and Thebaid 7.409-412).
Gerald now gradually restricts the focus of his narrative. A
general picture of hand-to-hand fighting (190-195) is followed
by emphasis upon Walter’s personal exploits (196-202). The
rout completed, the Hunnish soldiers return home. Gerald
repeats his practice of the previous battle episode by concluding
with his focus on the individual, in this case Walter, with
whom the scene began (214: sed ad solium mox Waltharius
properavit), and using this device as a transition to the next
scene.
Andersson’s perceptive analysis of this scene shows how
well Gerald has learned the composition of an epic battle (6).
He employs, to be sure, specific Vergilian allusions and the
commonplaces expected in descriptions of fighting; but it is the
overall design of the scene that is most impressive. He sets
the scene before the action begins, then alternates the depiction
of mass movements with individual feats to keep the narrative
lively. Moreover, he keeps our attention by gradually narrow-
ing the focus of the scene. We are first given a view of the
whole battlefield, then of the two armies as they approach one
another, then of hand-to-hand combat, and finally of the ex-
ploits of a single warrior (7).
The longest battle scene in the epic describes Walter’s
confrontation with his Frankish assailants in the Vosges Mount-
ains (644-1088). Others have dealt with Gerald’s broad based
imitation of epic models and the careful structuring of this
scene; but another aspect of his artistry, the use of a clustering
of allusions to a specific model, has gone unnoticed. Panzer,

(6) Andersson, op. cit., Pp. 133-137.

Eine Vergleichende
(7) See Hans Wagner, Ekkehard und Vergil:
Waltharius, Quellen und
Interpretation der Kampfschilderungen im
ms und des Mittelal-
Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertu
Unters uchung en und Mitteil ungen 9 (Heidelberg, 1939),
ters, Reihe D:
op. cit., pp. 137-144; Minicon i, op. cit.
passim; Andersson,

ii
RE sce
 to be sure, observed the similarities between this scene and
the ambush of Tydeus in the Thebaid (2.496-743), but drew
false conclusions from that resemblance (8). An episode in
which a single warrior fights alone against overwhelming odds
is, after all, a traditional motif of epic; and Gerald makes
verbal allusions seven times to another example of this motif,
the attack by Turnus upon the Trojan camp as recounted in the
ninth book of the Aeneid. The implication of these inter-
connected allusions deserves mention.
The first six echoes all occur in the description of individual
combats. Gerald makes the first of these doubly obvious.
Before Walter kills Werinhard, he scornfully replies to the
boasting of the Frankish warrior (742):

olli Waltharius ridenti pectore adorsus.

This is an echo of the statement by Turnus to the Trojan

Pandarus before killing him (Aeneid 9.740: olli subridens
sedato pectore Turnus). And Werinhard—as Gerald informs
us at some length (726-729)—is the descendent of Pandarus.
The scene from the Aeneid in which Turnus kills Pandarus is
evoked twice more by Gerald. After Turnus speaks, Pandarus
tries without success to wound him with a spear (Aeneid
9.743-744):

...ille rudem nodis et cortice crudo

intorquet summis adnixus viribus hastam.

Gerald calls this passage to mind when Batavrid throws his

spear at Walter (888-889):

(8) Friedrich Panzer, Der Kampf am Wasichenstein (Speyer am

Rhein, 1948) argues that the Waltharius is an original story concocted
from episodes from the Thebaid and Ovid’s Metamorphoses. For
a rebuttal of the notion, as well as a masterful approach to the
study of imitatio in the Waltharius, see Karl Stackmann, «Antike
Elemente im Waltharius,» Euphorion 45 (1950): 231-248.

Pen ee
 dixit et in verbo nodosam destinat hastam,
cuspide quam propria divertens transtulit heros.

In the Aeneid, when Pandarus’ spear falls harmlessly to the

ground, Turnus exclaims (9.747-748):

at non hoc telum, mea quod vi dextera versat

effugies, neque enim is teli nec vulneris auctor.

This phrase will later be echoed by the Frank Hadaward before

he attacks Walter (797-798):

...meque enim is teli seu vulneris auctor.

audi consilium, parmam deponito pictam.

In addition, the fight between Walter and this Hadaward

includes two other references to Turnus’ aristeia. Inside the
Trojan camp, Turnus is attacked from every side, and stones
resound as they strike his helmet (9.808-809: strepit adsiduo.../
tinnitu galea). Likewise the helmets of Walter and Hadaward
resound (828: dant tinnitus galeae). Gerald then describes
Hadaward’s death (842: ille cadit, clipeus superintonat ingens)
with a phrase used by Vergil with reference to Turnus’ victim
Bitias (9.709: clipeum intonat ingens). The last of these six
evocations occurs, in both epics, when the single warrior is
under attack by a group of enemies. Turnus’ perspiration flows
like a river (9.812-814):

...tum toto corpore sudor

liquitur et piceum (nec respirare potestas)
flumen agit.

Similarly rivers of sweat (999: manarunt cunctis sudoris flumina

membris) pour from the bodies of Walter and his foes.
,
The force of these allusions is to link Walter with Turnus
final remini scence reinfor ces.
a connection which Gerald’s
Walter,
Gunther, after losing all the men whom he sent against
action by pointi ng to the disgrac e
tries to goad Hagen into
ear eee
which Walter—one man (ab uno)}—has inflicted on the
Frankish army (1084-1088):

non modicum patimur damnum de caede virorum,

dedecus at tantum superabit Francia numquam.
antea quis fuimus suspecti, sibila dantes
«Francorum» dicent «exercitus omnis ab uno,
proh pudor ignotum vel quo, est impune necatus!»

This passage certainly reflects the values of the Germanic heroic

code; however, the immediately identifiable source for
Gunther’s words is the same episode in the Aeneid; for they
are based on Mnestheus’ rebuke to the Trojans (9.783-787) in
which he bemoans the shame (9.787: miseretque pudetque)
brought on'the Trojan army by one man (9.783: unus homo).
The connection seems clear. As before, Gerald’s poetic tech-
nique raises a question, in this instance concerning the aptness
of comparing Walter, if he is meant to be a positive exemplar
of Christian heroism, to Turnus.
In addition to the broader type of imitation reflected in his
battle descriptions, Gerald includes one episode, the banquet
given by Walter as part of his escape plan, based on a specific
scene in the Aeneid. His model, of course, is the banquet
which Dido gives in honor of Aeneas (1.637-756). A com-
parative look at the structure of the two episodes will reveal
Gerald’s imitative intent. Vergil’s scene begins with a brief
description of the sumptuously appointed banquet hall. There
follows a digression which explains Venus’ plan to use the
event for her own purposes. On the day of the feast the
guests—especially Aeneas and Cupid (as Iulus)—arrive. After
much feasting the tables are removed and wine bowls brought
in, at which time Dido offers a toast. After a song by Iopas,
Dido makes her request for Aeneas to recount the story of his
wanderings. In the Waltharius Gerald combines the first two
elements of Vergil’s scene; for Walter explains his ulterior
motive while ordering Hiltgunt to make preparations for the
banquet. On the appointed day the guests—especially Attila—

i 2
atrive, and Gerald takes this opportunity to describe the
banquet hall. After much eating and drinking the tables are
removed; and Walter offers a toast. In the Waltharius there
follows more drinking, until all the Huns pass out.
In addition to following the basic structure of his Vergilian
model, Gerald includes pointed verbal allusions to it. Consider
Vergil’s descriptions of the preparations for the feasting
(1.637-642):

at domus interior regali splendida luxu

instruitur, mediisque parant convivia tectis:
arte laboratae vestes ostroque superbo,
ingens argentum mensis, caelataque in auro
fortia facta patrum, series longissima rerum
per tot ducta viros antiqua ab origine gentis.

The first two lines appear at the beginning of Gerald’s de-

scription of the preparations ordered by Walter (289-290):

Waltharius magnis instruxit sumptibus escas.

luxuria in media residebat denique mensa.

Luxuria recalls Vergil’s luxu, while in media mensa is an

allusion to mediisque tectis, and instruxit reworks instruitur.
The final element of the Vergilian passage, the drinking vessel
embossed with representations of the heroic deeds of the host’s
ancestors, appears in Gerald’s version after Walter’s toast
(308-309):

et simul in verbo nappam dedit arte peractam

ordine sculpturae referentem gesta priorum.

Vergil’s series longissima is evoked by ordine, and of course

Gerald’s gesta priorum is an allusion to facta priorum. But
amid the numerous verbal echoes the most important appear
in the language of the toast which Walter offers his guests
(304-307):

—_
/
 postquam epulis depulsa fames sublataque mensa,
heros iam dictus dominum laetanter adorsus
inquit: «in hoc, rogito, clarescat gratia vestra,
ut vos inprimis, reliquos tunc laetificetis.»

The first line echoes Vergil’s description of the pause in the

festivities (1.723: postquam prima quies epulis mensaeque re-
motae). The toast itself is based on Dido’s words (1.731-735):

Iuppiter, hospitibus nam te dare iura loquuntur,

hunc laetum Tyriisque diem Troiaque profectis
esse velis, nostrosque huius meminisse minores.
adsit laetitiae Bacchus dator et bona Iuno;
et vos, o coetum, Tyrii, celebrate faventes.

Gerald has worked into his passage the double occurrence of

a form of Jaetitia (laetanter adorsus...laetificetis), echoing a
similar double usage in the language of Dido’s toast (hunc
laetum...diem... / adsit laetitiae Bacchus dator). In both
cases, of course, the words are meant ironically. The banquet
will bring no joy to Dido; and the Huns will awaken from
their boozy slumber to find Walter and Hiltgunt gone.
In Gerald’s treatment of the results of the banquet we can
observe an example of his ironic use of allusions to his epic
models. Their feasting, as I mentioned, will bring anything
but joy to Attila and the Huns. Gerald embeds two subtle
hints of this fact in the narrative; for he draws on Book 9 of
the Aeneid for two of his descriptions of the Huns’ stupor.
The first passage contains in fact two ominous references
(318-321):

taliter in seram produxit bachica noctem

munera Waltharius retrahitque redire volentes,
donec vi potus pressi somnoque gravati
passim porticibus sternuntur humotenus omnes.

The phrase somnogue gravati recalls Deiphobus’ use of som-

noque gravatum (Aeneid 6.520) in explaining to Aeneas how
he was betrayed by his wife. Moreover, the language evokes

ae}
the scene in the Italian camp observed by Nisus and Euryalus
when they arrive on their night foray (Aeneid 9.316-317:
passim somno vinoque per herbam / corpora fusa vident).
Later, when Gerald describes the sleeping Huns (358: populus
somno vinoque solutus), the language is reminiscent of Nisus’
words to describe the Rutulians (9.189: somno vinoque soluti)
as he conceives the idea of a sneak attack; and no reader
familiar with the Aeneid could fail to remember the trouble
in store for them.
In this episode, the butt of Gerald’s mockery is Attila.
The leader of the Huns awakens with one of the few graphi-
cally described hangovers of the Latin epic tradition (362-364):

Attila nempe manu caput amplexatus utraque

egreditur thalamo rex Walthariumque dolendo
advocat, ut proprium quereretur forte dolorem.

Holding his head in his hands, he is looking to share his misery

on the mistaken assumption that Walter too had been drinking
the night before; but he soon learns that indeed his dolor is
worse than a mere headache. Gerald thus describes Attila’s
reaction to the news of Walter’s escape (380-401):

iam princeps nimia succenditur efferus ira,

mutant laetitiam maerentia corda priorem.
ex humeris trabeam discindit ad infima totam,
et nunc huc animum tristem, nunc dividit illuc.
ac velut Aeolicis turbatur arena procellis,
sic intestinis rex fluctuat undique curis,
et varium pectus vario simul ore imitatus
prodidit exterius, quicquid toleraverat intus,
iraque sermonem permisit promere nullum.
ipso quippe die potum fastidit et escam,
nec placidam membris potuit dare cura quietem.
namque ubi nox rebus iam dempserat atra colores,
decidit in lectum, verum nec lumina clausit,
um,
nunc latus in dextrum fultus nunc inque sinistr
et veluti iaculo pectus transfi xus acuto
palpitat atque caput huc et mox jactitat illuc,

oi BOG ha
 et modo subrectus fulcro consederat ‘amens.
nec iuvat hoc, demum surgens discurrit in urbe,
atque thorum veniens simul attigit atque reliquit.
taliter insomnem consumpserat Attila noctem.
at profugi comites per amica silentia euntes
suspectam properant post terga relinquere terram.

The passage is rich in literary allusions, the effect of which is

to make Attila look ridiculous (9). Gerald first recalls Walter’s
ironic toast by commenting that now anger (nimia succenditur
efferus ira) has replaced Attila’s happiness (mutant laetitiam...
priorem). Attila displays that anger by ripping his royal robe.
The line contains a reference to an act of grief by Aeneas
(5.685: tum pius Aeneas humeris abscindere vestem), but the
added touch of tearing the robe «from shoulder to bottom»
seems excesive. The next line strengthens the connection with
Aeneas, since it is a reminiscence of his initial confused response
to Jupiter’s command to leave Carthage (Aeneid 4.285: atque
animum nunc huc celerem nunc dividit illuc). At first glance
the image that follows seems also to contain a Vergilian
reminiscence (ac velut Aeolicis turbatur arena procellis: storm-
tossed Aeneas?); but the reference is in fact to a mocking
description by Venantius Fortunatus of the digestive woes of
a gluttonous abbot (non sic Aeoliis turbatur harena procellis)!
Now we have a clearer notion of Gerald’s purpose: Attila’s
grief is to elicit laughter, not sympathy. For the rest of the
day he is too angry to talk and «of course» (quippe) cannot eat
or drink; nor can he sleep (nec placidam membris potuit dare
cura quetem). His restlessness, however, is told in language
almost identical to that used by Vergil to describe Dido’s dolor
(Aeneid 4.5: nec placidam membris dat cura quietem) after the
banquet in honor of Aeneas. At last Attila slumps into bed
(decidit in lectum), and Gerald describes the time of this hardly
heroic act (ubi nox rebus iam dempserat atra colores) with an

(9) The following discussion owes much to the sensitive analysis

of this scene by Dronke, op. cit.

we:
SE oa.
allusion to the moment when Aeneas descends into the Under-
world (6.272: et rebus nox abstulit atra colorem). In this
instance the juxtaposition of the action with the context of
the Vergilian allusion serves to undercut the stature of Attila’s
wrath. Moreover, the episode concludes with a continuation of
this use of Vergilian allusion to mock Attila; for the distraught
pacing of the «injured» Hun (veluti iaculo pectus transfixus
acuto) is reminiscent of the love-wounded Dido (4.69: qualis
coniecta serva sagitta). In sum, the fearsome king of the
mighty Huns is acting like a jilted, love-sick woman.
Gerald’s use of a clustering of allusions to undercut the
apparent seriousness of the scene depicting Attila’s wrath is
indicative of the ironic mood which pervades the whole epic.
Mockery is, in fact, the key to Gerald’s solution to the problem
of making the epic a vehicle for expressing Christian values.
Since previous discussions of this crucial issue have been based,
for the most part, on an equation of the Christian ethos of the
poem with the degree to which Walter’s behavior reflects
Christian values, they have failed to perceive that the Waltha-
rius is at once an epic without a hero and a comic work of
serious intent (10). For Gerald has taken the traditional
function of epic, celebrating the excellence of a heroic indiv-
idual, and inverted it to emphasize instead Walter’s inadequacy
as an exemplar of virtus. Gerald’s mocking criticism of Walter
is embedded in a narrative which seems to praise him, and is
effected through the use of allusions to Christian literature
—specifically, the Bible and Prudentius’ Psychomachia.
The basic structural design of the Waltharius is founded

(10) Cf. the contradictory opinions of von den Steinen, op. cit.,
p. 20: «Walter ist durchaus ein idealer Held und soll es sein: aber
nicht einem klassischen Helden wie Aeneas nachgepragt und auch
nicht vom Schnitt germanischer Sagenkénige, sondern eine Gestalt,
wie sie erst seit Karl dem Grossen getrdumt werden konnte, bei
aller Schwertgewalt christlichuntadlig und wiederum bei aller
Gewissenhaftigkeit unbefangen von den kirchlichen Formen geldst,»
and of Jones, op. cit., p .6: «There is evidence that Christianity is
only skin-deep in the Waltharius. Walther asks divine forgiveness
for boasting (561), yet he continues to boast thereafter without

—
 »

on a successive narrowing of the focus of the narrative. It

is divided into three main parts which are roughly equal in
length. The first section begins with all of Europe, indeed
a statement (perhaps meant to foreshadow the design of the
story to come) that Europe is one of three parts of the world
(1: tertia pars orbis, fratres, Europa vocatur). Then Gerald
turns to the three kingdoms which send hostages to Attila.
The core of the second section is Walter’s fight against
Gunther’s men. In the final third, three warriors—Gunther,
Hagen, Walter—fight among themselves. This recurrence of
the number three in the design of the whole epic—three
sections, three parts of the world, three warriors—provides
the first hint that Gerald intends to exploit his Germanic
subject matter for a Christian purpose. In this light it is of
interest to note that the invocation of Gerald’s prologue plays
on the paradox of the oneness of God within three persons
(prol. 3: personis trinus, vera deitate sed unus). Perhaps this
is coincidence, perhaps another foreshadowing of the structure
of the poem.
Within this basic scheme, Gerald takes care not to allow
any trace of sloppy craftsmanship. He keeps track of the
passage of time and, as I have discussed earlier with regard
to the battle episodes, is attentive to the physical setting in
which events occur (11). Occasionally he even interrupts the
narrative to remind the audience of his control. Early in the
tale he promises that Gunther will figure in the narrative (15:
quam postea narro). Later, when he introduces the use of
what may seem an anachronistic weapon, he hastens to inform
us that «at that time the Franks did have arms of this sort»

further apology ... Even though Walther crosses himself (225) and
invokes and thanks God, he shows no Christian mercy to his defense-
less and imploring victims ... In other words, Christianity is not
strong enough to interfere with literary tradition or secular custom.»
Recently Katscher has argued for von den Steinen’s position, op. cit.,
p. 66: «Walthari verkGrpert die Virtus im umfassenden Sinne und
zeigt die positive Seite des Leitmotivs.»
(11) See Andersson, op. cit.; and Katscher, op. cit., pp. 60-61.

ee gee
(910: istius ergo modi Francis tunc arma fuere). At the end of
the epic, when Walter, who has lost his sword, grabs a second
sword called a semispata with his left hand, Gerald reminds
us that he had already mentioned this weapon (1389-1392):

verum vulnigeram clipeo insertaverat ulnam

incolumique manu mox eripuit semispatam,
qua dextram cinxisse latus memoravimus illum,
ilico vindictam capiens ex hoste severam.

The remark to which Gerald alludes occurs more than 1000

lines earlier, as part of the description of Walter’s flight from
Attila (336-338):

et laevum femur ancipiti praecinxerat ense

atque alio dextrum pro ritu Pannoniarum:
is tamen ex una tantum dat vulnera parte.

Amid
A sword which cuts with only one edge is a semispata.
control , I should add, there appear two
these examples of
stencie s. The first concer ns the cooked fish
seeming inconsi
treasure
which leads to Gunther’s hearing about Walter and his
time that
(440-444), for it has remained fresh for a length of
rather puzz-
staggers the imagination; the second concerns the
fair to
ling ending of the narrative. About the fish it seems
; but the ending ,
say that dramatic need has overcome realism
to unders tand.
as I will show, is by no means difficult
found
Since the Christian theme of the Waltharius is to be
main characters,
in Gerald’s criticism of the behavior of the
I will examine in turn his characteriza tion of Gunther, Hagen
because his
and Walter. I will begin with Gunther, in part
es establ ishes him as a point of
utter lack of laudable qualiti
subtle attack on Hagen and
comparison for Gerald’s more
treatm ent of Gunth er shows to good
Walter. In addition, the
ia in Gerald’s
advantage the role of allusions to the Psychomach
narrative technique.
ic. The
Gunther’s behavior is, by any measure, unhero
ctiticism of him has three main elements. First, he is without

a GO
merit as a fighter; second, he is stupid; third,*he is greedy;
and a final jewel in this crown of flaws is his arrogance.
Walter himself offers an apt judgment of Gunther’s martial
prowess. After the final battle, since Gunther has shown
himself sluggish (segnis) and has fought lukewarmly and with-
out courage (qui Martis opus tepide atque enerviter egit),
Walter orders Hiltgunt to serve him last of all (1413-1415):

postremum volo Guntharius bibat, utpote segnis

inter magnanimum qui paruit arma virorum
et qui Martis opus tepide atque enerviter egit.

But Gunther is slow of mind as well as foot. He is described

as mad (1228: demens) when he enters the fray against Walter;
and he lives up to this description by coming up with a foolish
(1304: ineptum) plan of attack. When the plan fails, Gunther
waits «trembling and stupid» (1332: tremens stupidusque)
while Hagen saves his life.
Without ,Gunther’s greed, of course, there would be no
battle at Waskenstein. When the prince learns that Walter
is traveling through his domain, he thinks only of the treasure
he is reputedly carrying (468-472). Gerald promises his men
that Walter will surrender the treasure quickly, and later rejects
Walter’s offer of part of it (640-643):

post haec Camaloni praecipit aiens:

«perge et thesaurum reddi mihi praecipe totum.
quodsi cunctetur—scio tu vir fortis et audax—,
congredere et bello devictum mox spoliato.»

Nothing less than all will satisfy Gunther, even if it kills

Camalo. Indeed, eleven men will die for Gunther’s avarice.
When Camalo’s kinsman Scaramund dies, Gunther thinks
mainly of the treasure (720-724). At one point the remainder
of his depleted force begs Gunther to break off the battle; and
the prince does appeal to vengeance rather than money
(941-953). Yet here too Gerald keeps his greed before us; he
calls Gunther blind (943: miser caecusque), the same word

a eee
used but a few lines earlier by Hagen to describe his nephew
(870: en caecus mortem properat gustare nefandam) as he is
goaded by his own greed to taste death.
The summation of Gunther’s villainy is his superbia. His
arrogance and greed are, to be sure, closely connected. He is first
called arrogant (468: Guntharius princeps...superbus) when he
states for the first time his intention to wrest Walter’s treasure
from him. The adjective superbus is next applied to Gunther
(573-574: Hagano satrapae...superbo/suggerit) when Hagen
tries unsuccessfully to dissuade his lord from sending Camalo
against Walter. I have already mentioned Gunthet’s call to
vengeance after the death of Scaramund (720-724):

hunc ubi Guntharius conspexit obisse superbus,

hortatur socios pugnam renovare furentes:
«aggrediamur eum nec respirare sinamus,
donec deficiens lassescat; et inde revinctus
thesauros reddet luet et pro sanguine poenas.»

Note here again the connection between Gunther’s arrogance

(Guntharius...superbus) and his greed (thesauros reddet).
Mote subtle is the connection between the two vitia in the
following passage (513-515):

ast ubi Guntharius vestigia pulvere vidit,

cornipedem rapidum saevis calcaribus urget,
exultansque animis frustra sic fatur ad auras.

For these lines contain a striking allusion to the description of

Superbia herself in the Psychomachia (253-256):

talia vociferans rapidum calcaribus urget

cornipedem laxisque volat temeraria frenis
hostem humilem cupiens inpulsu umbonis equini
sternere deiectamque supercalcare ruinam.

Gunther urging on his horse (cornipedem rapidum saevis calca-

ribus urget) is the personification of Arrogance (rapidum calca-
QR)wx:
ribus urget/cornipedem). A few lines later Gerald strengthens
this connection. Arrogance, in her battle against Humility, is
described as «unbalanced» (Psychomachia 203-205):
ergo Humilem postquam male sana Superbia
[Mentem
vilibus instructam nullo ostentaminetelis
aspicit, in vocem dictis se effundit amaris.

Gunther too is unbalanced (530: male sana mente gravatus)

—and by implication arrogant—as he presses his greedy attack
against Walter.
In sum, Gunther’s cowardice, dullness, greed, and arrogance
place him on the opposite pole of any reasonable definition of
heroic virtue. The first two qualities ill serve him in the
enterprise into which he is plunged by his avaritia and super-
bia. Moreover, Gerald uses pointed references to the Psycho-
machia to strengthen the condemnation of Gunther as a vir
superbus; nor does the poet let us forget that it is Gunther’s
obsessive desire for the treasure which Walter is carrying that
precipitates the assault which results in so much death and
destruction.
The negative portrait of Gunther is balanced somewhat by
Gerald’s description of Hagen. He is served first after the
climactic battle since he is, in Walter’s words, a good warrior
(1411: est athleta bonus). Hagen is, in fact, Walter’s equal
in both strength and determination (1399-1400: duo magnanimi
heroes tam viribus aequi / quam fervore animi). This com-
parison reiterates a statement about Walter and Hagen made
at the beginning of the epic (103-105):
qui simul ingenio crescentes mentis et aevo
robore vincebant fortes animoque sophistas,
donec iam cunctos superarent fortiter Hunos.

These lines reflect the conventional definition of virtus as a

combination of wisdom (sapientia) and valor (fortitudo) (12).

(12) See Ernst Robert Curtius, European Literature and the

es ee
Both young men surpassed all the Huns—the wise in intel-
ligence (vincebant...animoque sophistas) and the brave in
strength (robore vincebant fortes). In the middle section of
the narrative Hagen further displays his intelligence by trying
on several occasions to dissuade Gunther from his vain quest.
Among his warnings to Gunther, we should recall, is that based
on the prophetic dream in which the two Franks are mutilated
by a bear; but Gunther arrogantly dismisses Hagen’s pessimism,
accusing him falsely of mere cowardice. In further contrast
to Gunther, Hagen is never described as superbus. He also
seems to be free of avaritia, for he refuses an offer of treasure
from Walter to desist once he has made up his mind to join
the battle against his friend (1264-1279). Finally, it is Hagen
whom Gerald chooses to deliver an impassioned condemnation
of avaritia at a critical point in the tale.
Hagen’s speech against greed stands at the thematic center
of the Waltharius. It is prompted by the sight of his nephew
Batavrid advancing toward an uneven fight with Walter
(857-877):

o vortex mundi, fames insatiatus habendi,

gurges avaritiae, cunctorum fibra malorum!
o utinam solum gluttires dira metallum
divitiasque alias, homines impune remittens!
sed tu nunc homines perverso numine perflans
incendis nullique suum iam sufficit. ecce
non trepidant mortem pro lucro incurrere turpem,
quanto plus retinent, tanto sitis ardet habendi.
externis modo vi modo furtive potiuntur
et, quod plus renovat gemitus lacrimasque ciebit,
caeligenas animas Erebi fornace retrudunt.
ecce ego dilectum nequeo revocare nepotem,
instimulatus enim de te est, o saeva cupido:

York, 1953), pp. 174-

Latin Middle Ages, tr. Willard R. Trask (New
heroic tradition.
176. The topos is found also in the Germanic
brave» (826: snotor ond
Beowulf, for example, is called «wise and
swythferhth).

=)
 en caecus mortem properat gustare nefandam
et vili pro laude cupit descendere ad umbras.
heu mihi care nepos, quid matri, perdite, mandas?
quis nuper ductam refovebit, care, maritam,
cui nec, rapte spei, pueri ludicra dedisti?
quis tibi nam furor est? unde haec dementia venit?
sic ait et gremium lacrimis conspersit obortis,
et longum «formose, vale» singultibus edit.

The harangue begins with two echoes of descriptions of Avarice

by Prudentius. The phrase fames insatiatus habendi recalls the
portrait of Avarice in the Psychomachia (478: amor insatiatus
habendi); and the second line contains a phrase from the
Hamartigenia (255: gurges avaritiae). Hagen’s attention turns
almost at once to the effect of the sin upon the behavior of
men, and their willingness even to die for wealth (non trepi-
dant mortem pro lucro incurrere turpem). The reference to
death brings Hagen’s thoughts back to Batavrid, who is driven
by greed and a desire for fame to face Walter. Hagen’s strong
condemnation of greed at this moment is at once relevant and
surprising. It is fitting that Gerald has chosen the beginning
of a decisive battle to interrupt the narrative and have Hagen
curse greed, for it is Batavrid’s death that will compel him to
end his obstinate refusal to join the assault against Walter. As
Hagen sees his nephew stride toward his doom, he rightly
deplores not only his greed but also Gunther’s in sending him
against Walter. On the other hand, the placement of a speech
against greed at this point in the narrative is at first a surprise,
since Gerald states that Batavrid was seeking not gold but glory
(854: arsit enim venis laudem captare cupiscens). However,
the end of the speech explains how Batavrid is in fact avari-
cious. Hagen continues his assertion of that greed (instimula-
tus enim de te est, o saeva cupido) by saying that Batavrid is
blindly (en caecus) rushing to taste death (mortem properat
gustare nefandam) for cheap praise (vili pro laude). Fame is
thus seen as a kind of greed. Indeed, notice the repetition in
this line of the language from Hagen’s earlier complaint that
men are willing to meet death (mortem...incurrere turpem)
for wealth (pro lucro).
By condemning Batavrid for greed when the young man is
seeking fame, Hagen’s speech accomplishes two things. First,
it makes explicit the nature of Gerald’s criticism of the
Germanic heroic code as founded on avaritia: the desire for
treasure is a self-evident kind of avarice, and now the warriot’s
concern for fame is revealed also as greed. Second, this
equation of glory with greed provides the basis for a later
condemnation of Hagen’s own behavior. He is drawn into
the final assault on Walter only to avenge the death of his
nephew. When he confronts Walter, he gives the following
explanation for his decision (1275-1279):
haec res est, pactum quia irritasti prior almum,
iccircoque gazam cupio pro foedere nullam.
sitne tibi soli virtus, volo discere in armis,
deque tuis manibus caedem perquiro nepotis.
en aut oppeto sive aliquid memorabile faxo.

Two elements of this speech stand out. First, Hagen states

clearly that he is motivated by a desire for revenge (deque
tuis manibus caedem perquiro nepotis). Second, although he
disclaims any interest in the treasure (gazam cupio...nullam),
he does express a concern about glory (aliquid memorabile
of
faxo). In doing so, Hagen involves himself with the taint
of his own earlier equatio n of the desire
avaritia as a result
for glory with that sin.
We can see, then, that Gerald uses Hagen’s speech against
Wal-
avarice to underscore the importance of that theme in the
moment ,
tharius. The long complaint is delivered at a critical
in Hagen’ s
just as Batavrid leaves for the fight which will result
motive s of
entering the fray. It is used to criticize the two
Hagen is
the Germanic warrior—wealth and fame. Although
implica tion he is
speaking specifically about his nephew, by
shown that by linking
criticizing Gunther as well; and I have
for his
the desire for fame with greed Hagen sets the stage
to Walter . Finally , it
own admission of avarice in his speech
23339
should be noted that none of the killing would have occurred
had Walter not taken the treasure with him in the first place.
We turn now to Walter. He is the central figure of the
epic, as Gerald informs us in the prologue (prol. 17-18: resonat
sed mira tyronis / nomine Waltharius) and in the last line of
the narrative (1456: haec est Waltharii poesis). The final
narrowing of the focus of the story directs our attention to
him alone, with a comment on his thirty years of happy rule
in Aquitaine. Are then Gunther and Hagen, not to mention
Attila, his foils, lesser characters whose function is to cast
Walter’s heroic excellence in sharper relief? I think not: for
a careful reading will reveal that Walter is no more an idealized
Christian hero than is Hagen or Gunther, and that while by
classical or Germanic standards Walter may seem admirable,
when judged by Christian standards he is not.
Much about Walter’s character is, to be sure, praiseworthy.
The first section of the narrative, in particular, stresses his
noble qualities. We have seen already that Walter, along with
Hagen, surpassed all others at Attila’s court in sapientia and
fortitudo. The escape of Hagen removes him temporarily from
the story and allows Gerald to concentrate on offering illus-
trations of these two qualities in Walter’s behavior. Indeed,
with Hagen gone, Attila’s wife urges her husband to keep
Walter, the prop of his empire (126: vestri imperii...columna),
at court by convincing him to marry; but Walter, who is
already contemplating his own escape (144: iam tum prae-
meditans, quod post compleverat actis), foils this plan. The
next scene illustrates his martial valor. Not only does he plan
the campaign against the rebel tribe (173: tunc ad Waltharium
convertitur actio rerum) but he also promises to fight with his
usual valor (177: solita virtute). There is, I should add, a
potential for irony in the phrase, which is borowed from the
description of herself by Patiens in the Psychomachia (156).
What follows immediately, however, is Walter’s aristeia
(196-200) as a demonstration of his fortitudo. After stressing
Walter’s bravery, Gerald returns to his intelligence, for the
next scene concerns the plan of the vir sapiens (240) which

a:
will enable him and Hiltgunt to escape. When they are gone,
Attila’s wife repeats her description of Walter as imperii co-
lumna (376), while the king of the Huns, despite offering the
powerful inducements of gold and glory (411-412: laudem
captare perennem / ...gazam infarcire cruminis), can find no
warriors to pursue Walter. They are all just too awate of his
valor (415: nota equidem virtus).
In addition to fortitudo and sapientia, the first section of
the narrative also introduces the flaw which will provide the
foundation for Gerald’s mocking condemnation of Walter.
When he explains the escape plan to Hiltgunt, he quite under-
standably instructs her first to get armor (261-265); but his
thoughts then turn at once to gold (265-267):
...bina dehinc mediocria scrinia tolle.
his armillarum tantum da Pannonicarum,
donec vix unum releves ad pectoris imum.

Only after telling Hiltgunt to load two boxes so heavily that

she can hardly lift them does Walter think of such necessities
as shoes and fish hooks. Gerald, moreover, reminds us of the
treasure when the two former hostages set out on their west-
ward journey (326-330). Indeed, it is fair to say that from
this point until almost the conclusion of the epic the treasure
occupies center stage: Gunther wants it, and Walter fights to
keep it.
In the central portion of the narrative, the treasure seems
to define for Walter his view of right action. At the first
sight of the approaching band of Franks, Hiltgunt, mistaking
them for Huns, immediately asks Walter to kill her and spare
her from having to «suffer sexual contact» (547: patiar con-
-sortia carnis) with any other man. After comforting her,
Walter recognizes the insignia of the Franks, but thinks im-
mediately of his treasure (561-563 ):

hac coram porta verbum modo iacto superbum:

hinc nullus rediens uxori dicere Francus
praesumet se impune gazae quid tollere tantae.

= Ci
 * *

He has not yet been attacked or even addressed by any of the

Franks; nevertheless, Walter is already suspicious of their
motives concerning his gold. The reference to the wives of
the Franks does remind Walter of Hiltgunt, and the expresses
his hope to be preserved for her out of the expected battle
(571: ex pugna tibi, Hiltgunt sponsa, reservor). But at the
heart of his boast is the system of values of the Germanic
heroic code: Walter cares about his reputation (nullus...uxori
dicere Francus / praesumet) and his possessions (gazae quid
tollere tantae). He will fight, in sum, to keep his treasure and
to avoid the shame of losing it.
Reputation and revenge are recurring themes in the de-
scription of Walter’s struggle against Gunther’s retainers.
When Camalo is killed, his nephew Scaramund demands the
right to attack next in order to avenge his kinsman (691: carum
ulciscar amicum). The fifth warrior, Hadaward, vows that he
will compel Walter to suffer punishment for his crimes (820:
tum demum scelerum cruciamina pendes). He is followed by
Batavrid, who fights for fame and not vengeance (854: laudem
captare cupiscens); but his death motivates first Gerwit (914:
hunc sese ulturum spondens Gerwitus adivit) and later, as we
saw, Hagen. By the time the eighth vassal, Randolf by name,
attacks him, Walter too is acting as much out of a concern for
his reputation as out of a desire to keep what he considers to
be his rightful property. When Randolf cuts off some of
Walter’s hair, the exhausted warrior is enraged (979-981):

«en pro calvitio capitis te vertice fraudo,

ne fiat ista tuae de me iactantia sponsae.»
vix effatus haec truncavit colla precantis.

Walter decapitates Randolf, though he begs for mercy (haec

truncavit colla precantis), to prevent the Frank from boasting
even that he gave Walter a bald spot! To the last Frank to
die in this seties of combats Walter again speaks of vengeance
(1056-1059):

=o
 wean
Alpharides: «morere» inquit «et haec sub Tartara
[transfer
enarrans sociis, quod tu sis ultus eosdem.»
his dictis torquem collo circumdedit aureum.

Walter slits the man’s throat (for that is the meaning of the
«bright necklace» he gives him) and sends the Frank to inform
his dead companions of his failure to avenge them. Finally,
the transition from this section of the narrative to its final
third turns on Gunther’s appeal to Hagen on the basis of the
Franks’ irreparable loss of reputation (1085: dedecus at tantum
superabit Francia numquam) if Walter should escape unharmed
(1088: impune).
An awesome warrior who to protect a treasure has just
killed eleven men, four of whom he decapitated, is an unlikely
exemplar of Christian virtue, especially in a work addressed
to monks; however, since Walter has been interpreted more
than once as the embodiment of a new «Christian» concept of
heroic virtue, it is necessary to examine those acts of his which
might support such a reading of the text. The notion that
Walter’s actions reflect Christian values, to be sure rests
upon slim evidence. The first indication that he is in fact a
Christian man occurs when he makes the sign of the cross
(225: qui signans accipiebat) before drinking a beaker of wine.
Later, while fleeing with Hiltgunt from the Huns, Walter
refrains from sexual intercourse with his beautiful betrothed
(cf. 456-457: incredibili formae decorata nitore / ...puella),
and for his continence earns Gerald’s praise (427: laudabilis
heros). Of considerably more significance, however, are two
events which frame the middle portion of the narrative. Just
we
before the attacks by Gunther’s men begin, Walter vows, as
saw, to protect his name and his treasure (561-563) ; however,
he sudenly interrupts this expression of a proud boast (561:
verbum modo iacto superbum) and repents for having said such
a thing (564-565):

ae.
 é *
necdum sermonem complevit, humotenus ecce
corruit et veniam petit, quia talia dixit.

This expression of humility is assuredly out of character for

a pagan hero; and it is in striking contrast to the attitude of
Walter’s antagonist Gunther, who not much before was de-
scribed as a personification of Superbia (513-515). Moreover,
contrition and prayer mark Walter’s behavior at the end of the
combats against Gunther’s men as well (1150-1167):

his ita provisis exploratisque profatur:

«en quocumque modo res pergant, hic recubabo,
donec circuiens lumen spera reddat amatum,
ne patriae fines dicat rex ille superbus
evasisse fuga furis de more per umbas.»
dixit et ecce viam vallo praemuniit artam
undique praecisis spinis simul et paliuris.
quo facto ad truncos sese convertit amaro
cum gemitu et cuicumque suum caput applicat atque
contra orientalem prostratus corpore partem
ac nudum retinens ensem hac voce precatur:
«rerum factori, sed et omnia facta regenti,
nil sine permisso cuius vel denique iusso
constat, ago grates, quod me defendit iniquis
hostilis turmae telis nec non quoque probris.
deprecor at dominum contrita mente benignum,
ut qui peccantes non vult sed perdere culpas,
hos in caelesti praestet mihi sede videri.»

While still concerned about his reputation, in that he will not

slip away from Gunther «like a thief» (furis de more), Walter
is also strongly moved by feelings of remorse. After searching
out the trunks of the four men whom he has decapitated,
Walter joins their severed heads to their bodies (cuicumque
suum caput applicat). His prayer, though thanking God for
preserving him from a loss of reputation (nec non quoque
probris), also expresses the hope of meeting his attackers in
heaven (hos in caelesti praestet mihi sede videri). This prayer,
made in a spirit of contrition (contrita mente) contains the

aes:
 ’s treatment
expression of an idea which is central to Gerald
behalf of his
of the avaritia theme; for Walter’s prayer on
s to destroy sins,
enemies is based on the belief that God wishe
e culpas ).
not sinners (qui peccantes non vult sed perder
as proof that Walter
This last episode is commonly cited
ssion to the tradit ional
is a new kind of hero who joins compa
a closer exami-
qualities of valor and intelligence; however,
for it must be admitted that
nation casts doubt on this view;
macab re acts of kindness,
Walter’s compassion, like his rather
after all, dead; nor are these
comes too late. The men are,
strong as the more conven tional
feelings of compassion as
the follow ing morni ng, Walte r goes
attitudes of a warrior. On
same dead (1191 -1197 ):
out and despoils those

agereditur iuvenis caesos spoliarier armis

a linquens:
armorumque habitu, tunicas et ceter
las tantu m, cum bullis balte a et enses,
armil
ollis.
loricas quoque cum galeis detraxerat
vit equos spon samq ue vocatam
quatuor his onera
uit quint o, sextu m consc ender at ipse
impos
so.
et primus vallo perrexerat ipse revul

ting with a horse—or

The picture of Walter and Hiltgunt depar
have more treasure
rather horses, since the two in this case
aden with treasure
and get a chance to tide themselves—l
language of the latter
recalls their flight from Attila. Even the
to the arm-rings (266:
scene (armillas tantum) calls attention contains
The passage
armillarum tantum) taken from the Huns.
lus’ despoiling of the
also an allusion to the Aeneid, to Eurya
us that Walter is be-
Rutulians (9.357-363), thus reminding
c tradition rather than
having in accord with the pagan heroi
r’s own words reflect
_a Christian attitude of compassion. Walte
hrist ian morality. Thus
this almost immediate return to a non-C
n and Gunt her have lured
he speaks when he realizes that Hage
attac k him toget her (1215-
him from his stronghold only to
1218):

pee
| ome
 *
incassum multos mea dextera fuderat hostes,
si modo supremis laus desit, dedecus assit.
est satius pulcram per vulnera quaerere mortem
quam solum amissis palando evadere rebus.

By his own admission Walter is fighting in order that his right

hand may not have slain many enemies in vain (incassum
multos mea dextera fuderat hostes). He fears the absence of
glory and the presence of ill fame (laus desit, dedecus assit)
which will occur if he escapes without his possessions (solum
amissis palando evadere rebus). God is not mentioned.
The sequence of events described above is typical of
Gerald’s undercutting of any possible interpretation of Walter
as steadfastly Christian in his attitude or behavior. For another
example, his rejection of boasting is soon forgotten (561-565)
when he chides a warrior before killing him (750-753) and
sends another to the Underworld with a message from Walter
boasting of victory (1056-1058); nor is Walter’s concern with
the accomplishments of his right hand (multos mea dextera
fuderat hostes) an isolated moment. Before killing Hadaward,
Walter addresses both his hands (812-817):

viribus 0 summis hostem depellere cures,

dextera, ne rapiat tibi propugnacula muri!
tu clavum umbonis studeas retinere, sinistra,
atque ebori digitos circumfer glutine fixos!
istic ne ponas pondus, quod tanta viarum
portasti spatia, ex Avarum nam sedibus altis!

Their function is to repel the enemy (hostem repellere) and

thus to avoid the loss of the treasure (ne ponas pondus) which
has been transported so great a distance. Most interesting,
however, is Walter’s address to Hiltgunt earlier in the story
when she believes that the Huns have found them (548-553):

tum iuvénis: «cruor innocuus me tinxerit?» inquit

et: «quo forte modo gladius potis est inimicos
sternere, tam fidae si nunc non parcit amicae?

os,
OR
 absit quod rogitas, mentis depone pavorem.
qui me de variis eduxit saepe periclis,
hic valet hic hostes, credo, confundere nostros.

In whom—or what—is Walter placing his trust? One’s first

the
impression is to say God, especially given the evocation of
(2 Cor. 1.10: qui de tantis pericul is
Bible in Walter’s words
hand, the anteced ent of qui in this
nos etipuit). On the other
s potis
passage grammatically could well be the sword (gladiu
e) to which Walter has just referre d. The
est inimicos sterner
stateme nt allows either God or Walter’ s sword
wording of the
here,
to be the hic which can confound his enemies; for we have
Seduliu s
I suggest, an example of the studied ambiguity which
If Walter
employs so effectively in the De Quodam Verbece.
by those
means God, then he will contradict this assertion
I have already
later expressions of faith in his right hand which
cited (812-817, 1215-1218). That he is more likely to mean
of the
his sword may be indicated by the fact that the simile
bear which Gerald uses to describe Walter is based, as I
us; for
showed, on a simile used by Vergil to describe Mezenti
invokes his right hand as his
in the same episode Mezentius
mihi deus et telum. ../nun c
god (Aeneid 10. 773-774: dextra
like
adsint!). However, if Walter does mean his sword, then
Gunther’s
Mezentius’ his confidence is ill founded. Of one of
will kill Gerald says that he vainly
men whom Walter soon
confisus inaniter
trusted in his sword alone (784: in solum
in leaving
ensem). The reference is to the man’s foolishness
but I think that the critici sm can be applied
his spear behind;
afterw ard will
figuratively also to Walter, who but a few lines
behind.
address his two hands (812-817) but leave God
a model
In sum, Walter’s avarice prevents him from being
treasu re from the
- of Christian virtue. Once he has taken the
and with avoid ing
Huns, he is preoccupied both with keeping it
rs, the two
the shame of losing it. As with Attila’s warrio
are the desire for
motives which prod Walter into action
fighti ng he places his
reputation and for wealth. During the
rather tham in God. In
trust in his sword-bearing right hand
ee ae
the heat of battle his «Christian» feelings of compassion and
remorse melt away, leaving a core of values which bear little
resemblance to an idealized Christian ethic.
Walter’s outlook, however, is not to be confused with the
outlook of the Waltharius. As I suggested earlier, the Chris-
tian theme of the epic is to be found in Gerald’s criticism of
his cast of «heroic» characters. The poet draws together the
disparate threads of the narrative in a brilliantly conceived
final scene which makes its mocking point through direct
moralizing, a clustering of allusions to the Psychomachia, and
an apparent act of carelessness on the part of the poet which
in fact is meant to draw our attention to a Biblical quotation
that provides the key to the underlying meaning of the
narrative.
The etiding of the Waltharius has been regarded as a
puzzle (13). If so, it is not by accident that it is puzzling; for
in the narrative Gerald gives clear indication of the importance
of the outcome of the climactic battle pitting Walter alone
against Gunther and Hagen. The sequence of events of that
battle is briefly as follows. When Walter, attempting to
escape, is overtaken by his two adversaries, he offers Hagen
gifts to dissuade him from breaking their long-standing friend-
ship. The latter, however, declares that pact already broken
and demands repayment for the death of Batavrid. In the
ensuing struggle, each man is grievously wounded. Walter
cuts off Gunther’s leg above the knee; but before he can finish
off the prince, Hagen jumps in his way. When Walter’s sword
shatters on Hagen’s helmet, the angry and frustrated Walter
throws away the useless hilt. Hagen takes this opportunity
to slice off Walter’s outstretched right hand. With his left

(13) Von den Steinen, op. cit., p. 19, explains away the ending
by saying that it shows the poet was dealing with traditional
material which he could not alter even though it made little sense.
Jones, op. cit., p. 18, speaks of the «trick ending» of the narrative.
The puzzling nature of the conclusion is perhaps best reflected in
the number of critics who simply ignore the problems which it poses
for their reading of the poem.

we Wee
 out
hand, however, Walter grabs a one-edged sword and puts
his teeth. The three men,
Hagen’s right eye as well as six of
injured and exhausted, now lay down their weapons. Walter
some
orders Hiltgunt to serve wine, after which the men enjoy
wounds , and then go their
rather cruel jokes about their
ns that Walter will reach home,
separate ways. Gerald mentio
years.
marry Hiltgunt, and rule happily in Aquitaine for thirty
The first two thirds of the epic contain several foresh adow-
s dream,
ings of this conclusion. Through the device of Hagen’
us in advanc e of the wound s to be suffere d by
Gerald informs
bear to
Gunther and Hagen. He also uses the simile of the
ing the
recall that prophecy less than fifty lines before describ
only that
event itself. The injury to Walter calls to mind not
but also his
warriot’s earlier imprecation to his right hand
the episode . More-
reference to that hand at the beginning of
with a battle
over, the second section of the narrative ends
with the final combat.
(1021-1061) which has much in common
n this case
Here too Walter fights alone against two men—i
off the right hand of Trogus
Trogus and Tanastus. Walter cuts
m ferient is ademit) ; but a
(1045: et cursu advolitans dextra
off the injured foe lands
second blow designed to finish
of Tanast us. Walter is angere d
instead on the interposed shield
convert it in ipsum) and wrench es
(1050: hinc indignatus iram
him. He then
Tanastus’ shoulder from its socket before killing
Although the
returns to his interrupted business with Trogus.
us being, after
outcome is different—neither Trogus nor Tanast
out here two basic
all, of Hagen’s might—we can see acted
of a right hand and
events of the final combat: the amputation
is thwarted by a
Walter’s frustration when his sword blow
ned in Hagen’s
second wattior. Added to the information contai
owledg e of what
dream, this episode provides us with forekn e.
the final struggl
will happen to all three combattants in s
scene are the wound
The two key elements of the final
and the sudden halt to
which the men inflict on one another ic
ly have symbol
the fighting. The wounds unquestionab
e. Hagen loses
meaning. Consider the most obvious exampl
is his expres sed motivation
an eye and six teeth. And what
ee oe
for joining at last the assault against Walter? Revenge. Surely
no monk would have missed the appropriateness -of these
wounds or the evocation of the Biblical injunction «an eye for
an eye, a tooth for a tooth» (Exodus 21:22-25).
Gerald even intrudes into the narrative in order to empha-
size the importance of the set of wounds and relate them to
his moral stance (1401-1404):
postquam finis adest, insignia quemque notabant:
illic Guntharii regis pes, palma iacebat
Waltharii nec non tremulus Haganonis ocellus.
sic sic armillas partiti Avarenses!

Not only the vividness of this gruesome list—Hagen’s eye is

still twitching (nec non tremulus)!—but also the exclamation
with its repetition of sic call attention to the importance of
the information. And yet the list is inaccurate. It fails to
make mention of Hagen’s missing teeth; moreover, although
Walter had hacked off Gunther’s whole leg including the knee
up to the thigh (1369: crus cum poplite adusque femur), the
catalogue mentions only the amputated foot. These seeming
errors are most unusual lapses on the part of a poet who, as .
I have shown, prides himself on attention to accuracy in even
minor details. But they are not lapses. The omission and
change serve to turn the catalogue of wounds into another
unmistakable scriptural reference (Mark 9.42-48):

And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off; it

is better for you to enter life maimed than with
two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire.
And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off; it is
better for you to enter life lame than with two feet
to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you
to sin, pluck it out; it is better for you to enter the
kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes
to be thrown into hell, where the worm does not
die, and the fire is not quenched.

Gerald’s use of this allusion provides the key to unlocking the

ee
meaning beneath the lively surface narrative. The obvious
implication is that the wounds are meant to be viewed as
punishments suffered by the three men for yielding to temp-
tation. Walter, by taking the treasure, and Gunther, by
pursuing it, have yielded directly to avarice. Hagen has yielded
indirectly by giving in to his desire for vengeance and then
declaring his concern for glory.
Since Walter is the central character of the epic, the sym-
bolism of the injury inflicted on him is developed more fully.
His wound calls to mind a corresponding passage in Matthew
which refers to the cutting off of one’s right hand (Matthew
5.30):
And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off
and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of
your members than that your whole body go into
hell.

When we remember Walter’s earlier avowed faith in his right

hand to protect his possessions, the loss of that hand seems
singularly appropriate. But Gerald establishes an even more
precise connection between Waltet’s wound and punishment
for his greed. To understand fully that connection, we must
now turn our attention back to the Psychomachia.
Allusions to the Psychomachia play an important role in
Gerald’s description of the events leading up to and including
the thoughtless act which renders Walter vulnerable to Hagen’s
attack (1333-1385). The scene is designed to emphasize that
Walter’s outlook is essentially unChristian. The bear simile
(1337-1345) at the beginning of the scene links him to the
pagan Mezentius. Next, Gerald allows Walter to reveal in his
own words that his outlook as a warrior is pagan rather than
Christian. I mentioned earlier that the rest of the narrative
casts doubt on the assumption that Walter trusts in God to
protect him. If Walter does forget God when striving to keep
his treasure, what force does he see operating in human affairs?
When he begins to lose heart, the following thought steals
into his mind (1347-1349):

2 eae
 interea herois coepit subrepere menti*
quiddam, qui tacito premit has sub corde loquelas:
«si Fortuna viam non commutaverit, isti
vana fatigatum memet per ludicra fallent.»

Walter expresses his fear that Hagen and Gunther will trick
him, tired as he is (fatigatum memet per ludicra fallent). But
it is Fortuna not God in whom he sees the power to change
things (si Fortuna viam non commutaverit). Though he is like
Gunther in mercifully few respects, Walter seems to share
his attitude at least concerning the power of Fortuna; for
earlier the mad king (1228: rex...demens), imagining that even
supernatural forces share his own failings, had accused Walter
of having bribed Fortuna (1236: scio, Fortunam mercede vo-
casti). And it is especially important to note that Walter’s
reference to Fortuna at this point in the battle is reminiscent
of the complaint of Avaritia in the Psychomachia that Fortuna
is mocking her vain efforts (525: et cassos ludit Fortuna la-
certos).
Walter’s concern, like that expressed by Avaritia, that his
efforts have been in vain surfaces in his next speech, a taunting
challenge to Hagen to stand and fight (1350-1355):

ilico et elata Haganoni voce profatur:

«oO paliure, vires foliis, ut pungere possis;
tu saltando iocans astu me ludere temptas.
sed iam faxo locum, propius ne accedere tardes:
ecce tuas—scio, praegrandes—ostendito vires!
me piget incassum tantos sufferre labores.»

In addition to a pun on Hagen’s name (paliure = hagen-dorn)

and a verbal allusion to the bear simile (propius...accedere),
this passage contains in its last line an instructive double
reminiscence within the Waltharius and to the Aeneid. The
internal reference is to Walter’s earlier boast that he will not
allow his right hand to have slain so many men in vain (1215:
incassum)—an allusion which also recalls Avaritia’s statement
concerning Fortuna. The Vergilian reminiscence reestablishes

oe
A one
the link between Walter and Turnus which I demonstrated in
my analysis of the middle section of the epic. For when
Walter declares that he is tired of undergoing so many labors
in vain (me piget incassum tantos sufferre labores), he repeats
almost exactly the words addressed to Turnus by Allecto
(Aeneid 7.421: Turne, tot incassum fusos patiere labores) when
that dire fiend arouses him to anger (7.445: talibus Allecto
dictis exarsit in iras).
Walter’s own anger and its baleful consequences are the
subject of the rest of the scene. He cuts off Gunthet’s leg,
but loses his temper when his sword breaks on Hagen’s helmet
(1371-1385):
extensam cohibere manum non quiverat heros,
sed cassis fabrefacta diu meliusque peracta
excipit assultum mox et scintillat in altum.
cuius duritia stupefactus dissilit ensis,
proh dolor! et crepitans partim micat aere et herbis.
belliger ut frameae murcatae fragmina vidit,
indigne tulit ac nimia furit efferus ira
impatiensque sui capulum sine pondere ferri,
quamlibet eximio praestaret et arte metallo,
protinus abiecit monimentaque tristia sprevit.
qui dum forte manum iam enormiter exeruisset,
abstulit hanc Hagano sat laetus vulnere prompto.
in medio iactus recidebat dextera fortis
gentibus ac populis multis suspecta, tyrannis,
innumerabilibus quae fulserat ante trophaeis.

In this passage too we can observe the skilful intertwining of

allusions to both the Aeneid and the Psychomachia. On the
one hand, the purpose of the connection between Walter and
Turnus is made clear. Walter raises his sword (spatam tollens)
for the death blow; but when Hagen’s helmet receives the
blow (obiecit ad ictum), the sword shatters (dissilit ensis) and
the pieces glitter in the grass (partim micat...herbis), So it
is also with Turnus when at last he faces Aeneas. He puts
his all into one sword stroke (Aeneid 12.729: alte sublatum
consurgit Turnus in ensem); but in the middle of the blow
ee ee
 *
(12.732: in medio...ictu) the blade shatters (12.740-741: mor-
talis mucro...ictu / dissiluit) and the fragments glitter in the
sand (12.741: fulva resplendent fragmina harena). Turnus is
to die; and Gerald, by this series of allusions, provides still
another foreshadowing of dolor in store for Walter.
The shattering of Walter’s sword contains as well an
important clustering of verbal references to the Psychomachia.
In like maner the sword of Ira shatters against the well
wrought helmet of Patiens (132-144). The similarities be-
tween the two passages are closest in their description of the
reactions of the disappointed warriors. Consider Ira (145-150):
ira, ubi truncati mucronis fragmina vidit
et procul in partes ensem crepuisse minutas,
iam capulum retinente manu sine pondere ferri,
mentis inops ebur infelix decorisque pudendi
perfida signa abicit monumentaque tristia longe
spernit, et ad proprium succenditur effera letum.

When she sees the broken fragments (truncati mucronis frag-

mina vidit) and the useless hilt (capulum...sine pondere ferri),
she throws away the wretched reminder (abicit monumentaque
tristia / longe spernit) and rages uncontrollably (succenditur
effera). And now Walter: Angered (nimia furit efferus ira)
when he sees his shattered sword (frameae murcatae fragmina
vidit) and useless hilt (sui capulum sine pondere ferri), Walter
disdainfully throws away the unwelcome reminder (protinus
abiecit monimenta tristia sprevit). Yet the number of pointed
allusions in this passage is still not exhausted. Now Walter
is impatiens—quite a change for the man who earlier (177)
had described himself in language recalling Ira’s foe Patientia.
Moreover, in picturing the angry Walter as nimia...efferus ira
Gerald uses the same phrase which is applied to Attila when
he realizes Walter has escaped (380: nimia succenditur efferus
ira); and Attila’s anger, we recall, was ridiculed by Gerald
through the comparison of the Hun with Dido. Given this
complex of references, then, to the Aeneid and Psychomachia,
we might say that Walter gets off lightly. Turnus dies by the

oo
sword of Aeneas, and Ita is so maddened that she kills herself.
But Walter’s action causes him to lose «only» his right hand.
And Gerald concludes the scene by lingering over a description
of that severed hand lying on the ground (1383-1385), thus
prefiguring its presence (1401: palma iacebat) in the catalogue
of wounds a few lines later.
In the episode which I have just examined, Gerald’s use
of allusions to the Psychomachia to connect Walter with the
figure of Ira is one of several devices by which he casts his
hero’s behavior in a negative light. More important, however,
are the allusions in this episode and the next (the cessation of
hostilities) to Prudentius’ description of Avaritia, the Sin who
is perhaps the most dangerous of the seven striving with the
Virtues for control of the human soul. The allusions to her
in this episode are drawn mainly from Prudentius’ account of
her entrance onto the field of battle (454-463):

fertur Avaritia gremio praecincta capaci,

quidquid Luxus edax pretiosum liquerat, unca
corripuisse manu, pulchra in ludibria vasto
ore inhians aurique legens fragmenta caduci
inter harenarum cumulos. nec sufficit amplos
implevisse sinus; iuvat infercire cruminis
turpe lucrum et gravidos furtis distendere fiscos,
quos laeva celante tegit laterisque sinistri
velat opermento; velox nam dextra rapinas
abradit spoliisque ungues exercet aenos.

Gerald has already made reference to this description of Greed.

When Attila is exhorting his men to pursue Walter, noone
is willing despite the desire to win glory and «cram treasure
in money-bags» (412: gazam infarcire cruminis). There the
allusion to Avaritia cramming her base gain in money-bags
(iuvat infercire cruminis / turpe lucrum) clearly reflects a
criticism of the usual motives of Germanic warriors—an attack
which is developed more fully in Hagen’s long speech before
the death of Batavrid. The rest of Prudentius’ picture,
especially the image of Avaritia scraping up spoils (rapinas /
=
abradit) with her swift right hand (velox nam deXtra) is most
effective. Perhaps the notion of scraping inspired the sword
that that scraped off some of Walter’s hair (971-972: vertice
crines / abrasit) but was not able to graze his scalp (972:
cutem praestringere summam); in the Psychomachia the
weapons hurled by Greed likewise inflict only superficial cuts
(506-507: vix in cute summa / praestringens) . But the most
relevant feature of Prudentius’ description is the picture of
Avaritia grabbing after plunder.with her right hand; hence, it
is proper, indeed inevitable, that Walter lose the grasping right
hand that he depended on to protect the plunder which his
avarice led him to have stuffed into treasure chests.
We turn now to the warriors’ sudden cessation of hosti-
lities. In this instance too Gerald is employing imitation of
the Psychomachia to underscore the criticism of avarice as the
Christian message of his epic. In Prudentius’ narrative, after
Avaritia has been killed, victorious Operatio announces that
now is the time for the Virtues to rest and refresh themselves
(606-608):
solvite procinctum, iusti, et discedite ab armis!
causa mali tanti iacet interfecta; lucrandi
ingluvie pereunte licet requiescere sanctis.

This episode (603-663) in the Psychomachia provides the model

for the drinking which ends the Waltharius. The cause for
rejoicing among the Virtues is the defeat of Avaritia (causa
mali tanti iacet interfecta). Rest is possible only after the lust
for gain is dead (lucrandi / ingluvie pereunte). Operatio’s
next words describe the true rest of those without greed
(609-628). Among her exhortations to moderation is one
which has special significance for the reader of the Waltharius;
for she advises her colleagues when setting out on a journey
not even to carry a wallet (613: ingressurus iter peram ne
tollito) but to trust in God to provide for their needs. How
different was Walter’s attitude in taking so much treasure
when he fled Attila! From Gerald’s Christian viewpoint, that

=
deed is avarice; and the rest enjoyed by the three warriors is
like that of the Virtues after the death of Avaritia. In this
case, the sin has been, if not defeated, at least amply punished.
Finally, what are we to make of the crude banter which
follows (1421-1442):

hic tandem Hagano spinosus et ipse Aquitanus,

mentibus invicti, licet omni corpore lassi,
post varios pugnae strepitus ictusque tremendos
inter pocula scurrili certamine ludunt.
Francus ait: «iam dehinc servos agitabis, amice,
quorum de corio wantis sine fine fruaris:
et dextrum, moneo, tenera lanugine comple,
ut causae ignaros palmae sub imagine fallas.
wah! sed quid dicis, quod ritum infringere gentis
ac dextro femori gladium agglomerare videris
uxorique tuae, si quando ea cura subintrat,
perverso amplexu circumdabis euge sinistram?
iam quid demoror? en posthac tibi quicquid
[agendum est,
laeva manus faciet.» cui Walthare talia reddit:
«cur tam prosilias, admiror, lusce Sicamber:
si venor cervos, carnem vitabis aprinam.
ex hoc iam famulis tu suspectando iubebis
heroum turbas transversa tuendo salutans.
sed fidei memor antiquae tibi consiliabor:
iam si quando domum venias laribusque propinques,
effice lardatam de multra farreque pultam:
haec pariter victum tibi conferet atque medelam.

Such a flitting would be customary among Germanic warriors.

But the content of the jokes is what matters here. Hagen tells
Walter he will henceforth need to fill one of his gloves with
down to fool people into believing that he has two hands;
but from now on he has only his left hand for holding his
sword or his wife—or doing anything at all. Walter replies
with jibes at Hagen’s future life of soft food and sidelong
glances. Moreover, after the two are finished, they have to
lift up the severely injured Gunther (1444: regem tollentes
ee ee
valde dolentem) and put him on his horse. Thén Gerald, to
say that they go their separate ways (1445: sic disiecti redie-
runt), uses the word disiecti. It can mean «in different
directions;» it can also mean «torn to pieces.» For at the end
of his epic Gerald still wants our attention on the wounds
suffered by the three «heroes»; and in this context we need
not wonder why he seems to forget about the treasure which
has been central to the narrative for so long. It has served
his purpose; for Gerald has revealed that the warrior’s pre-
occupation with wealth as a material symbol of his worth is
by Christian standards a form of greed. The wounds inflicted
on Walter, Hagen, and Gunther are punishment enough for
their actions; for as Walter himself says, more aptly than he
knows, God wishes to destroy not sinners but sins (1166:
peccantes non vult sed perdere culpas).
The conclusion of the Waltharius is in no way inconsistent
with the rest of the narrative. It may seem odd at first that
Walter and his two foes so quickly give up the fighting, and
that Gerald makes no further mention of the armillae Avaren-
ses for which they were contending with such bitterness.
However, these apparent inconsistencies, like that in the
catalogue of wounds, are dissolved once we perceive them as
elements of Gerald’s larger theme, the mockery of the avaritia
which prevents Walter or any of the others from being a model
of Christian heroism. Each inconsistency in fact directs us to
a sub-text: the list of wounds to the Bible, and the sudden
end of the combat to the Psychomachia. Both the overall
design of the Walzharius and Gerald’s use of foreshadowing
emphasize the importance of the conclusion, which in turn
makes explicit the ironic intent of what has gone before.
Gerald, while utilizing the trappings of epic, has turned the
genre to a new purpose. He resolves the problem of welding
Christian content to a Germanic story told in classical form
by attacking the values of at first glance heroic figures and
rendering them ridiculous. In his prologue, Gerald speaks of
the Waltharius as an entertainment (prol. 19: ludendum est),
and we have seen that his epic indeed is filled with mocking

=<
humor. But we should not forget that sin is the butt of that
humor, and in the ridicule of misplaced values lies the poem’s
Christian spirit.

ae
 -
v

Ae woth, eemerhes.

i]
*
n a >
: jp

mh

. .
’ , -~
 MOCKING HEROISM:
ALEXANDER THE GREAT AND THE PURSUIT
OF GLORY

The story of Alisaundre is so commune,

That every wight that hath discrecioun
Hath heard somewhat or all of his fortune.
The Monks Tale 641-643.
Alexander died, Alexander was buried,
Alexander returneth into dust; the dust is
earth; of earth we make loam; and why of
that loam, whereto he was converted, might
they not stop a beer-barrel?
Hamlet, Act V, Scene 1

Walter of Chatillon had already established his reputation

as a writer of importance when, in 1176, he began an epic
poem on the career of Alexander the Great. We know little
for certain about Walter’s life (1). We do know that he was
born ca. 1135, that he studied for a time at Paris, and that
shortly thereafter he became head of the school at Laon, a
position he gave up to be a canon at Reims. In the 1160s
Walter joined the chancery of Henry II of England, where he
became a friend of John of Salisbury. Early in the 1170’s,
disenchanted with Henry, Walter left England and became a
teacher in Chatillon (probably Chatillon-sur-Marne). It was

life see
(1) For the sources of information concerning Walter’s
Mittelalters
Max Manitius, Geschichte der lateinischen Literatur des
Christensen,
III (Munich, 1931), pp. 920-936. Consult also Heinrich
S., 1905), pp. 1-76.
Das Alexanderlied Walters von Chatillon (Halle a.

<a
during this period that his production of shorter poems, as now
represented in the St. Omer MS and Strecker’s collection of
mordlisch-satirische Gedichte, brought Walter fame and linked
his name henceforth with Chatillon (2). In 1176 William of
Champagne, who was then Archbishop of Sens, exchanged
his diocese for that of Reims. When he arrived there, he
appointed Walter as his notary and public orator. It was
to his patron William that the Alexandreis was dedicated by
Walter.
The Alexandreis secured Walter’s position as one of the
most accomplished poets of the twelfth century; and not co-
incidentally it earned him the reward of being made a canon
at Amiens. The existence today of more than 200 manuscripts
of the epic, many written within a century of its composition,
attests to the immediate and continued popularity of Walter’s
narrative. In the thirteenth century, in fact, the Alexandreis
was used as a textbook in many schools throughout France;
indeed, in the latter part of that century Henry of Ghent re-
marked that the Alexandreis was so highly regarded that the
reading of ancient poets was being reglected in favor of it.
Moreover, the Alexandreis was influential as well as popular.
Alan of Lille’s oft mentioned dislike of the poem was atypical,
and even his attack can stand as evidence of its appeal. The
list of twelfth-century writers who knew Walter’s epic and
make allusions to it in their work includes, in addition to Alan,
Matthew of Vendéme, Nigellus Wireker, Henry of Settimello,
Joseph of Exeter, and Eberhard of Bethune. But perhaps the
most impressive indication of the success of the poem lies in
the number of vernacular versions of the life of Alexander that
were based on it. Walter’s narrative is the principal source
of thirteenth-century poems in Middle Dutch (Alexanders
Geesten by Jakob van Maerlant), Spanish (the Libro de Alexan-

(2) On Walter's reputation and its connection with his literary

output while at Chatillon, see Karl Strecker, «Walter von Chatillon
ey 2 on Zeitschrift fiir deutsches Altertum 64 (1927): 97-

62 =
 dre), Middle High German (Ulrich von Eschenbach’s Alex-
ander), and Old Czech. In the same century Brand Jonsson
made a prose translation of Walter’s epic into Icelandic (3).
Walter’s mastery of the epic genre has won praise also from
modern critics. Bolgar, for example, calls him «no pedestrian
imitator» and says that he «shows a genuine appreciation of
the overall form and characteristics of his genre.» To Bezzola,
Walter is «un des plus brillants parmi les grands ‘humanistes’
du xu° siécle, profond connaisseur des classiques qu’il imite
couramment sans les copier;» and Malkiel offers what may
fairly be called the widely held view that the Alexandreis is the
best medieval imitation of a classical epic (4). These opinions
are representative of those expressing admiration for Walter’s
achievement. Praise of the Alexandreis has centered almost
exclusively upon Walter’s ivzitatio, an important aspect of the
poem to be sure, but one with which—because its excellence
is generally accepted—I will deal rather briefly. After that
discussion I will consider at length a neglected aspect of the

(3) Manitius, op. cit., pp. 653, 740, 800, 813, 928; see also
Christensen, op. cit., pp. 166-168. On the critical reception and the
influence of the Alexandreis George Cary, The Medieval Alexander,
edited by D. J. A. Ross (Cambridge, 1956), is invaluable. The unkind
words of Alan of Lille are from Anticlaudianus, 166-169:
Maevius in coelos audens os ponere mutum,
gesta ducis Macedum tenebrosi carminis umbra
pingere dum temptat, in primo limine fessus
haeret, et ignavam queritur torpescere musam...
(4) R. R. Bolgar, The Classical Heritage and its Beneficiaries
(London, 1954), pp. 220-221; R. R. Bezzola, Les origines et la formation
de la littérature courtoise en occident 500-1200 III.1 (Paris, 1967),
p. 404; Maria Rosa Lida de Malkiel, L’Idée de la gloire dans la tra-
dition occidentale (Paris, 1968), p. 128. Others who have praised
- Walter’s imitatio include C. Giordano, Alexandreis, poema di Gautier
da Chatillon (Naples, 1917), p. 26; J. de Ghellinck, L’Essor de la
littérature latine au XIIe siécle (Brussels, 1955), p. 436; Raby, Secular
Latin Poetry, Volume II (Oxford, 1957), p. 72. Christensen’s book
remains the most thorough study of Walter’s use of his models;
however, Fritz Peter Knapp, Similitudo (Vienna, 1975), pp. 227-267,
contains a useful analysis of Walter’s imitative technique with regard
to similes.

ee <a
epic—Walter’s originality in adapting the genre’ to a Christian
theme.
Walter’s recreation of the epic genre differs from Gerald’s
not in kind but in complexity, and this complexity is primarily
a function of length; for the more than 5,000 lines of the
Alexandreis allow Walter to incorporate many if not all of the
features of style and content associated with Latin epic after
Vergil. The rules of large scale Vergilian imitation, so to
speak, had been laid down by Statius and Lucan. The Thebaid,
in particular, can be described as an extended allusion to the
Aeneid; but even Lucan, who flaunts his break with the
Vergilian epic, manages to utilize most of the same conventions
as did Statius (5). Hence, it is appropriate to say that when
Walter, for example, begins his epic with an invocation and
proposition (1.1...5: gesta ducis Macetum...Musa refer), he
is observing tradition rather than a specific model. For the
most part, Walter’s imitation is of this sort. Unlike Gerald,
he models no one scene directly upon a classical exemplar.
He seems to have been equally familiar with Vergil, Lucan
and Statius; and the overall impression left by the Alexandreis
is of a poet who knew well the conventions of the epic genre
and who wished to demonstrate that knowledge. The main
components of Walter’s epic style are the simile (6), the
evocative allusion, and the commonplace phrase, or topos. His
language is replete with reminiscences of his classical models;

(5) Cf. Mario di Cesare, Vida’s «Christiad» and Vergilian Epic

(New York, 1964), pp. 218-219: «C. S. Lewis has remarked that after
Vergil epic poetry could not be the same again; it is quite amazing
how much the same it remained. Statius set the pattern ... showing
what imitation of Vergil must attempt. That is to say, a Vergilian
epic must be an epic in which all the conventional devices, or as
many of them as possible, are utilized for some purpose or other
and are couched in Vergilian phraseology ... After Statius ... Christian
epic which assayed imitation of Vergil almost always was Statian,
not Vergilian—a straight narrative adapted, or contorted, to the
canonical elements and in the elaborately formal style redolent of
the Aeneid.»
(6) A complete listing of the similes which occur in the
Alexandreis is given in Knapp, loc. cit.

ee. ee
but most often it is Lucan rather than Vergil or Statius that
the echoes in the Alexandreis call to mind, especially in the
numerous apostrophes of which both Lucan and Walter are
so fond. The topoi, which I have mentioned already in my
analyses of the battles described by Sedulius and Gerald, are
in essence ready-made phrases of motifs which both facilitate
the composition of a scene and give it an appropriate «epic»
texture. These topoi were part of Vergil’s Homeric imitation,
and they were used by every subsequent epic poet. They are
important only when employed clumsily; and while medieval
Latin epic contains many examples of such clumsiness, happily
they are not to be found in the Waltharius or the Alexandreis.
The content of the Alexandreis is in like manner traditional.
Although Walter quite understandably eschews the use of the
Olympian gods (in this choice following not only his Christian
beliefs but also the practice of Lucan), he does manage to
include supernatural machinery—as in the role of Natura and
Satan in the death of Alexander (10.6-350). He has in-
corporated several visions into the narrative, the most important
of which is the appearance of the High Priest of Jerusalem to
Alexander in a dream (1.501-537). Moreover, Walter makes
much use of ekphrasis, particularly extended descriptions of
works of art. The description of the shield of Darius (2.494-
529) is one example; others are the two sarcophagi designed
by Apelles (4.176-274 and 7.379-430). Walter is equally adept
at depicting the artwork of nature, as in his portrait of the
landscape of Issus (2.306-318) or the wealth of India (9.9-34).
Even if literary tradition did not demand the inclusion of
battle scenes, one could hardly avoid them in a work on the
life of Alexander. But Walter’s intent to compose his narrative
within the bounds of the Latin epic tradition is particularly
evident in such scenes. Christensen first pointed out that
instead of following his historical sources Walter employs the
method of epic in his tendency to focus upon series of indi-
vidual combats (7). But there is more to his method. His

(7) Christensen, op. cit., p. 83.

pda ee
treatment of the battle of Arbela in books 4 and 5 illustrates
both Walter’s technique and his limitations as a narrator. For
the episode lacks the verve of Gerald’s battles, even though
Walter displays an equal knowledge of how to alter perspective
in order to keep the reader’s attention and how to narrow the
focus in order to emphasize the prowess of his central character.
The battle scene begins as it will end with emphasis on
Alexander. Troubled and undecided, he calls a council of
war (4.275-373), at which he scorns the suggestion of a night
attack and decides on a pitched battle in full daylight. Walter
then turns briefly to the Persian side and describes the initial
preparations of Darius’ army, with emphasis upon the glitter
of the weapons (4.379-390):

ignibus accensis acies ardere videntur:

sideribus certant galeae, clipeisque retusis
invenisse pares flammas stupet arduus aether,
et metuit fieri coelum ne terra laboret.
nec minimum gaudet nox instar habere diei:
nam pro sole sibi Darii datur aemula Phoebi
cassis, et in summo lampas sedet ignea cono,
sidera quae noctis obscurans, solaque solis
solius radiis indignans cedere: quantum
lumine cedit ei, tantum praeiudicat illis.
mille micant lapides in gyrum, nullus eorum
quem iubar ardoris non disputet esse pyropum.

Walter is almost playful in his manipulation of the topos. He

builds in the notion of the light reflected from the weapons
rivalling first that of the stars (sideribus certant galeae) and
then of the sun (gaudet nox instar habere diei). The most
brilliant light, however, is that reflected from the helmet of
Darius—the eventual loser of the battle; and Walter indicates
his mockery of Darius by using annominatio (solaque solis/
solius), one of his favorite devices, to undercut the apparent
splendor of the Persian king.
Walter then interrupts the narrative of events on earth to
describe a «descent from heaven» when Victory sends Sleep

an ee
to the troubled and restless Alexander (4.402-453). Alexander
awakes filled with confidence, and there follows the motif of
the «arming of the hero» for battle (4.498-521) and Alexander’s
exhortation to his men. Immediately after that speech, the
battle begins. In this case at least Walter, unlike Gerald (and
like Lucan), pays little attention to the physical setting of the
battle; but he is careful to work in the topoi of the noise of
the fighting reaching the sky (4.589: it tantus ad aethera
clamor) and of the «shower» of weapons (5.23: missiliumque
frequens regem circumvolat imber). The latter image is used
to direct our attention back to Alexander; and the rest of the
scene is, with a few interruptions, his aristeia.
The aristeia of Alexander begins with two of his less de-
manding victims, and a picture of the carnage all around
§5.29235)):

quo feriente cadunt Eliphas Pharaone creatus,

et Pharos Orchanides: Eliphas iaculo, Pharos ense,
hic eques, ille pedes, Aegyptius hic, Syrus ille.
sicca prius sterilisque diu iam flumine fusi
sanguinis humet humus, iamque imbuit unda cruoris
arterias Cybeles: cadit infinita vicissim
Persarum Macetumque manus.

Walter’s playfulness in dealing with commonplaces, which I

mentioned above, surfaces again when he takes the opportun-
ity to pun while describing the «earth moist with blood»
(flumine fusi /sanguinis humet humus). Moreover, his man-
nered lingering over Eliphas and Pharos, who are after all not
very important, gives the impression that the poet is perhaps
more interested in his art than in a lively narrative; for these
lesser watriors are but a prelude to Alexander’s struggle with
the giant Geon (5.38-75). Similes at the beginning and the end
of this episode stress the enormous size of Alexander’s foe. In
the first (5.47-54) he is a wild boar standing head and shoulder
above the dogs which have cornered it; in the second (5.68-71)
he falls like an uproted tree. In the center is the account of
his death (5.56-65):

BS eae
 ...dumque arduus ille cruentam
erigeret clavam, clamoso gutture regi
intonat «heus» inquit «quis te furor egit in hostem,
Magne, giganteum? quem sidereas Iovis arces
affectasse legis? a quo vix fulmine tandem
tutus in aethera mansit Saturnius arce?»
nondum finierat, agili cum torta lacerto
pinus Alexandri medio stetit ore loquentis,
faucibus affigens linguam, ne deroget ultra
coelicolis.

As Geon derides Alexander’s stupidity in standing up to a

giant, and as he blasphemes the gods, the Macedonian hurls a
spear which strikes the boaster in the mouth (pinus Alexandri
medio stetit ore loquentis). This motif of a spear interrupting
the exclamations of a boasting enemy may have been suggested
to Walter by Statius (Thebaid 2.624-628). At any rate, the
death blow is peculiarly appropriate; and after Geon crashes
to the ground, Alexander’s soldiers finish him off.
Walter now shifts our attention to the exploits of two
other Greek warriors, Clitus (5.76-122) and Nicanor (5.123-
182). After brief success, Clitus is killed. Nicanor, however,
wreaks greater havoc among the Persians. The description of
his rampage contains a pointed allusion to Lucan’s Bellum
Civile. In that epic, the shade of Julia appears in a dream to
Pompey and to emphasize the coming horrors of the civil war
uses the image of the Fates being hard pressed to cut the
threads fast enough (3.18-19):

vix Operi cunctae dextra properante sorores

sufficiunt, lassant rumpentes stamina Parcas.

Walter adopts this image in describing the slaughter taking

place all around Nicanor (5.142-144):

rumpere fila manu non sufficit una sororum,

abiectaque colo Clotho Lachesisque virorum
fata metunt, unamque duae iuvere sorores.

a AR a
Again Walter seems momentarily more interested in the chal-
lenge of word-play than sword-play. So many men are dying
that one sister alone is not up to the task, and the other two
must leave their appointed tasks to help. Walter has taken an
outlandish image and managed to outdo his model. Fierce
though Nicanor is, however, he too must fall. His death and
that of Clitus surely are meant in part as counterpoints to the
continuing success of Alexander, whose deeds fill the rest of
the episode (5.183-282). Like Gerald, then, Walter has
composed his battle scene with a steadily narrowing focus
meant at last to emphasize the martial prowess of his central
character . Nevertheless, this episode from the Alexandreis
lacks the vigor of the earlier epic. The real skill in Walter’s
depiction of what happens at Issus lies in his foreshadowing
of ultimate failure within Alexander’s apparent success. But I
must defer that discussion for the moment.
As I did with the Waltharius, I will now examine Walter’s
artistry in the composition of one simile. In Book 1, he
compares Alexander to a young lion raging at the sight of a
herd of deer (1.49-58):

qualiter Hyrcanis cum forte leunculus arvis

cornibus elatis videt ire ad pabula cervos,
cui nondum totos descendit robur in armos,
nec pede firmus adhuc, nec dentibus asper aduncis:
palpitat, et vacuum ferit improba lingua palatum,
effunditque prius animo quam dente cruorem,
pigritiamque pedum redimit matura voluntas:
sic puer effrenus totus bacchatur in arma,
invalidusque manu gerit alto corde leonem,
et praeceps teneros audacia praevenit annos.

Impatiently the cub strikes his tongue against his empty palate
(vacuum ferit improba lingua palatum) and imagines himself
killing the deer (effunditque prius animo quam dente cruorem).
There exist several possible «sources» for this simile. In
Book 1 of the Bellum Civile, Lucan compares Caesar to a lion
(1.205-212):

ee
 *

...sicut squalentibus arvis

aestiferae Libyes viso leo comminus hoste
susedit dubius, totam cum colligit iram;
mox, ubi se saevae stimulavit verbere caudae
erexitque iubam et vasto grave murmur hiatu
infremuit, tum, torta levis si lancea Mauri
haereat aut latum subeant venabula pectus,
per ferrum tanti securus volneris exit.

Although the circumstances are similar, in that both lions rage

at the sight of prey, this image contains no mention of the
lion’s desire to spill blood which is prominent in the passage
from the Alexandreis. References to blood and thirst do appear
in the next simile of Lucan’s epic (1.327-332):

utque ferae tigres nunquam posuere furorem,

quas nemore Hyrcano matrum dum lustra secuntur,
altus caesorum pavit cruor armentorum,
sic et Sullanum solito tibi lambere ferrum
durat, Magne, sitis. nullus semel ore receptus
pollutas patitur sanguis mansuescere fauces.

Lucan’s reference here is to Pompey; but he is an old man,

and he has actually drunk the blood which the young lion
Alexander still only imagines. Indeed, the notion of a young
animal spilling blood in its imagination may owe something to
the Punica of Silius Italicus (4.333-336):
...illa [tigris] pererrat
desertas victrix valles, iamque ora reducto
paulatim nudat rictu, ut praesentia mandens
corpora, et immani stragem meditatur hiatu.

It seems more likely, however, that Walter was influenced by

a simile from Claudian’s de III cons. Hon. (77-80):
ut leo, quem fulvae matris spelunca tegebat,
uberibus solitum pasci, cum crescere sensit
unque pedes et terga iubis et dentibus ora;
iam negat imbelles epulas...

ee
ID ee
Here, as in Walter’s simile, we have a young lion; moreover,
both lions, though unable actually to kill their prey, are eager
to end their dependence on the food of cubs. The sheer wealth
of animal similes in the Latin epic tradition makes it possible,
of course, to point to more similes bearing a resemblance to
the one in question. The significant point, however, is that
Walter borrowed none. The leunculus image is very much
his own creation. It is effective in its immediate context; in
addition, as we shall see, it stands at the beginning of a series
of four extended animal similes applied to Alexander which
form a coherent pattern that helps emphasize the thematic
structure of the whole work.
Finally, I must restate the importance of the influence of
Lucan upon Walter as an epic poet. Although he modestly
cites Vergil as his model (prol. 19-20: non enim me .arbitror
Mantuano vate meliorem), his style and his conception of epic
owe more to Lucan. In the words which Eberhard of Bethune
used about Walter’s narrative, lucet Alexander Lucani luce.
Walter’s language abounds in reminiscences of the Bellum
Civile; his frequent use of moralizing apostrophes reflects his
admiration for Lucan; indeed, it seems hardly by chance that
Walter divided the Alexandreis into ten, not twelve books (8).
Yet Walter’s choice of Lucan as a model should strike the
reader familiar with the Bellum Civile as odd. Lucan, after all,
could hardly be described as an admirer of Alexander. Of
all the attacks in classical literature against Alexander none is
more withering than the denunciation which appears at the
beginning of the final book of the Bellum Civile (10.20-52).
Alexander was, for Lucan, a madman and a bandit whom he
cannot even bring himself to call by name (20.20-28):
illic Pellaei proles vesana Philippi,
felix praedo, iacet terrarum vindice fato
raptus: sacratis totum spargenda per orbem

(8) Knapp deserves credit for emphasizing the importance of

Lucan as a model for Walter, though he fails to pursue the im-
plications of this fact.

em
 »
membra viri posuere adytis; Fortuna pepercit
manibus, et regni duravit ad ultima fatum.
nam sibi libertas umquam si redderet orbem,
ludibrio servatus erat, non utile mundo
editus exemplum, terras tot posse sub uno
esse viro.

Alexander’s famous luck spared his body, which should have

been ripped apart and scattered over the world as a reminder
of tyranny. He left a bad example to the world (non utile
mundo/editus exemplum), that so many lands can be subject
to one man. After summarizing Alexander’s career, Lucan
points out that only death halted his advance (10.37-45):

: ...non illi flammae nec undae

nec sterilis Lybye nec Syrticus obstitit Hammon.
isset in occasus mundi devexa secutus
ambissetque polos Nilumque a fonte bibisset:
occurrit suprema dies, Naturaque solum
hunc potuit finem vaesano ponere regi;
qui secum invidia, quo totum ceperat orbem,
abstulit imperium, nulloque herede relicto
totius fati lacerandas praebuit urbes.

In discussing Alexander’s death, Lucan makes the comment

—one of considerable importance, as we shall see, for the
reader of Walter’s epic—that only Natura was able to put
an end to the mad king (Naturaque solum / hunc potuit finem
vaesano ponere regi).
If we wish to accept the widely held view that Walter
composed his epic to hold up Alexander as a model of heroic
excellence, we must face this paradox: why choose as his model
an epic poet who vehemently hated Alexander? Walter himselt
forces us to confront the issue at the conclusion of the
Alexandreis when he repeats the notion of Alexander as an
exemplum (10.448-454):

Magnus in exemplo est: cui non suffecerat orbis,

sufficit exciso defossa marmore terra

sade
OT cs
 quinque pedum fabricata domus, qua nobile corpus
exigua requievit humo, donec Ptolemaeus,
cui legis Aegyptum in partem cessisse, verendi
depositum fati toti venerabile mundo
transtulit ad dictam de nomine principis urbem.

The evocation of Lucan through the reference to Alexander as

an exemplum (Magnus in exemplo est) is strengthened by
Walter’s use of another theme which figures prominently in
the Bellum Civile. Walter remarks that now the confined
space of a tomb is enough for Alexander, for whom once the
world had not sufficed (cui non suffecerat orbis) (9). This
same phrase appears at two important points in Lucan’s epic.
Caesar, when confronted by an uprising among his soldiers, uses
the words (5.356: quibus hic non sufficit orbis)—albeit with
fierce irony—to describe his weary and resentful men. Later
the phrase is applied to Caesar himself (10.454-460):
quem non violasset Alanus,
non Scytha, non fixo qui ludit in hospite Maurus,
hic cui Romani spatium non sufficit orbis,
parvaque regna putet Tyriis cum Gadibus Indos,
ceu puer inbellis, ceu captis femina muris,
quarit tuta domus; spem vitae in limine clauso
ponit, et incerto lustrat vagus atria cursu.

Both Walter and Lucan use their final reference to the notion
of sufficiency with ironic intent. Walter contrasts the whole
world with the narrow confines of a tomb (quinque pedum...
domus); Caesar’s boundless ambition is contrasted with the
small room of a house (domus) which Lucan calls an «un-
worthy hiding place» (10.441: degeneres passus latebras). Is
this connection of Alexander with the Caesar of the Bellum
Civile without significance? If so, why does Walter establish
it so carefully? Is it part of a larger design which has gone

has its roots in the Suasoriae; see M. P. O.

(9) This theme
Morford, The Poet Lucan (Oxford, 1967), pp. 16-17.

cae dTeas
 *
unnoticed by critics, or an example of a lack of focus on
Walter’s part? And given Walter’s admiration for Lucan,
should we as readers not take into account the fact that the
Bellum Civile was seen by many medieval commentators as
containing praise uttered per ironiam?
Unfortunately, such questions have largely been ignored,
especially by those who dismiss the Alexandreis as unsuccessful
or «merely imitative.» The sharpest attacks on the poem have
centered on the so-called episodic nature of the narrative, and
on Walter’s inability to weave what is seen as a series of dis-
connected episodes into a coherent whole. Haskins, for ex-
ample, lumps Walter’s effort with Joseph of Exeter’s Ylias and
the «interminable» Troie of their contemporary Benoit as
typical of the degeneration of the classical epic tradition (10).
Only Christensen has seen any controlling design in the
narrative; he notes that Walter omits all Alexander’s minor
campaigns and battles in order to concentrate the reader’s
attention on the two great struggles—between Alexander and
Darius, Alexander and Porus (11). The more common view
is that expressed recently by Knapp, whose appreciation for
elements of the epic is outweighed by his dislike of its episodic
structure, or lack thereof. Knapp’s harsh final judgment it that
«ein fliichtiger Vergleich mit Vergil und selbst Lucan zeigt
schon das Unvermégen des Dichters, die versifizierte Historio-
graphie zum Epos zu wandeln» (12). The Alexandreis, in
sum, appears to several critics to be little more than a chronicle
epic, that is, a straightforward recounting of events which the
author gives heroic proportions by including the conventional
machinery of epic narrative. In this view the Alexandreis is
raised from mediocrity, if it is, only by Walter’s admiration for
the exploits and magnanimitas of Alexander.

(10) Charles Homer Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth

Century (Cambridge, Mass., 1927; repr. Cleveland, 1964), p. 266.
(11) Christensen, op. cit., pp. 107-109.
(12) Knapp, op. cit., p. 266. See my review of this book in
Speculum, Volume 52, Number 4 (1977): 1010-1013.

OU eee:
 Knapp’s conclusion, though wrong I think, contains an
important reminder that the Alexandreis is essentially a histor-
ical epic. Walter is dealing with the Alexander of history, not
of marvelous legend. His primary source of information about
Alexander is the Historiae Alexandri Magni Macedonis com-
posed by Quintus Curtius probably in the second half of the
first century AD. Where information from Curtius was
lacking, he made use of Justin’s epitome of the Historiae Philip-
picae by the Augustan historian Pompeius Trogus. His sources
include as well Julius Valerius, Josephus, Isidore of Seville,
and one might add Lucan. Curtius, however, is the most
important. He portrays Alexander as a man of noble character
who was corrupted by success. He argues that the vices of
the Persians conquered Alexander even though their weapons
could not (6.2.1: quem arma Persarum non fregerant, vitia
vicerunt). Central to Curtius’ treatment of the downfall of
Alexander is the role of Fortuna. He portrays Alexander’s luck
as unfailingly good (cf. 8.3.1: Fortuna, indulgendo ei numquam
fatigata). In speaking of Fortuna, Curtius marvels at the con-
stancy of her protection of Alexander (10.5.32: quotiens temere
in pericula vectum perpetua felicitate protexit!). Yet Curtius
perceives in Alexander’s luck the seeds of his destruction. His
Fortuna is seen as the cause of many of the vices of which he
can be accused (10.5.26: bona naturae eius fuisse, vitia vel
Fortunae vel aetatis).
The role of luck (Fortuna, ¢ych@) was an important feature
of ancient portraits of Alexander, and was stressed particularly
by his Stoic and Peripatetic critics. I have alluded to two
aspects of this theme in Curtius’ account: that Alexander owed
his success to an uncharacteristic constancy of Fortuna’s favor,
but also that such constant good luck was responsible for the
deterioration of his character. Among Roman historians who
discuss Alexander, Livy (9.17-19) also argued that Alexander
was victimized by his prosperity, which caused him to give way
to drunkenness and anger. Livy repeats as well the Peripatetic
view that Alexander was lucky to die before his Fortuna could
change for the worse. This theme was picked up by Christian

ee
writers, particularly those trying to point a moral from the
story of Alexander’s career. A typical example of this kind of
moralizing interpretation is to be found in the Monk’s Tale
from Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales. Fortune is mentioned four
times in the forty lines devoted specifically to Alexander.
Alexander’s uncommonly good luck is cited (2643: Fortune hym
made the heir of hire honour); but his death is described in
terms of her fickleness (3848-3852):

O worthy, gentil Alisandre, allas,

that evere sholde fallen swich a cas!
empoysened of thyn owene folk thou weere;
thy sys Fortune hath turned into aas,
and yet for thee ne weep she never a teere.

The image of Fortune playing a dice game is a common one,

and one used to good effect by Walter, I should add. Later,
after the monk tells the story of Julius Caesar, he thus con-
cludes (2719-2726):

Lucan, to thee this storie I recomende,

and to Swetoun, and to Valerie also,
that of this storie writen word and ende,
how that to thise grete conqueroures two
Fortune was first freend, and sitthe foo.
no man ne truste upon hire favour longe,
but have hire in awayt for everemoo;
witnesse on alle thise conqueroures stronge.

The fact that Alexander died, as every man must, makes him
susceptible to being an exemplum of the fickleness of Fortune.
Indeed, among later medieval writers it appears that the theme
of Alexander as a plaything of Fortune is associated primarily
with stories of his death. This rather limited connection may
explain the relatively few illustrations in medieval art of
Alexander himself on the famous Wheel of Fortune (13).

(13) Cary, op. cit., is a rich source of information for medieval

we eS
 Fortuna plays a prominent role not only in Walter’s primary
historical source, Curtius, but also in his main literary model.
Fortuna is the principal divine force in the Bellum Civile (14).
It encompasses the role that a number of gods and goddesses
fulfill in the Aeneid and Thebaid. Caesar is victorious, in
Lucan’s view, because he is Fortuna’s favorite; and he in turn
willingly follows Fortuna (1.226: te, Fortuna, sequor). Caesat’s
adversary Pompey also sees Fortuna as the controlling force
operating in human affairs. Although Pompey perceives, as
Caesar does not, the capricious and unjust nature of Fortuna,
he too allows himself to be ruled by her. A third individual
linked by Lucan to Fortuna is, of course, Alexander, to whose
Fortuna Lucan makes specific reference (10.23-24: Fortuna
pepercit/manibus). We are reminded, however, that Lucan
hated both Alexander and Caesar, the two filii Fortunae; and
we must continue to ponder the significance of this reliance
upon Lucan by the author of an epic about Alexander.
In conclusion, although elements of the Alexandreis have
been much praised, on the whole Walter’s epic has been
dismissed by modern critics as either a failure or at best a
pleasant entertainment. It is assumed that Walter’s purpose
in composing the Alexandreis was to glorify Alexander the
Great. This view is stated with vigor by Cary, whose assertion
that «the spell of Alexander’s conquests» had fallen upon
Walter and that Walter made his Alexander into a godlike hero»
has found widespread acceptance. Associated with this inter-

attitudes concerning Alexander. On Fortuna, still useful is Howard

R. Patch, The Goddess Fortuna in Medieval Literature (Cambridge,
Mass., 1927). Every student of medieval literature is indebted to
F. P. Pickering’s work on the place of Fortuna in Christian historical
oder
thought. Pickering’s thesis is stated most fully in Augustinus
Boethius? I. Einfiihre nder Teil (Philologi sche Studien und Quellen
39: Berlin, 1967). For a compilation, episode by episode, of Walter’s
pp. 212-216.
use of his historical sources, see Christensen, op. cit.,
(14) See W.-H. Friedrich, «Cato, Caesar und Fortuna bei Lucan,»
the role of
Hermes 73 (1938): 391-423; an excellent discussion of
Ahl, Lucan:
Fortuna in the Bellum Civile appears in Frederick M.
An Introduction (Ithaca, New York, 1976), pp. 286-305.

|)
pretation is the assumption that the Alexandreis is, in the main,
escapist literature; that is, that Walter, like an earlier day
William Morris, is, in Raby’s words, «taking refuge from the
present in a more spacious world, a world of heroes and kings,
of antique virtue and of superhuman endeavour.» To sum-
marize, the Alexandreis is regarded by many as a skillful
recreation of the epic form, but a barren one, which Walter,
perhaps prompted by a nostalgic vision of a temps perdu,
composed to laud Alexander as the noblest available model
of heroic excellence (15).
I intend to show, however, that up to now praise and
criticism alike have been based on a mistaken notion of Walter’s
stance with regard to the epic tradition, for his imitatio is not
so straightforward, nor is the meaning of his epic so obvious.
A detailed examination of the narrative, with particular atten-
tion to the interrelated themes of gloria and fortuna, will make
clear both the ironic tone which pervades it and the criticism
of Alexander which gives it thematic unity. We will see that
the Alexandreis, like the Waltharius, is fundamentally a mock-
ing epic. As Gerald seemed at first to be offering a new model
of Christian heroism, so the Alexander of Walter’s narrative
seems at first to be «of knyghthod and of fredom flour.»
However, Walter too undercuts and mocks the apparent ex-
cellence of his protagonist. We will see that when he states
at the conclusion of his work Magnus in exemplo est (10.448),
it is cautionary exemplum; for Walter stresses the limitations

(15) Cary, op. cit., p. 173; Raby, op. cit., II, p. 79. Cf£. Bolgar,
«Hero or Anti-Hero?» in Concepts of the Hero in the Middle Ages
and the Renaissance, ed. Norman T. Burns and Christopher J. Regan
(Albany, New York, 1975), p. 125: «a fashion ... to glorify merely
human courage and success (a fashion that gave us Walter of
Chatillon’s Alexandreis and the several versions of the tale of
Troy).» Christensen also stresses Walter’s admiration for Alexander,
op. cit., p. 109. Only Knapp, op. cit., p. 250, has seen even «ambi-
valence» in Walter’s attitude toward Alexander. A recent dismissal
of the Alexandreis as a simple story without deeper purpose is
Tene by ee J. Sheridan, Alan of Lille: Anticlaudianus (Toronto,
» Pp. :

Saas ees
of Alexander’s greatness. More accurately, Walter uses Alexan-
der to criticize the outmoded heroic cast of mind which focuses
on the transient glory of this mutable world to the exclusion of
higher values. This criticism provides an underlying structure
that ties together the series of episodes of which the narrative
is composed.
The Alexandreis begins with emphasis on glory. In his
proposition, Walter stresses not only the glory which Alexander
won but also how much more he would have won had he lived
longer (1.1-8):

gesta ducis Macetum totum digesta per orbem,

quam large dispersit opes, quo milite Porum
vicerit et Darium, quo principe Graecia victrix
risit et a Persis rediere tributa Corinthum,
Musa refer: qui si senio non fractus inermi
pollice fatorum iustos vixisset in annos,
Caesareos numquam loqueretur fama triumphos,
totaque Romuleae squaleret gloria gentis.

This statement of the superiority of his subject matter to that

of the Roman poets (totaque Romuleae squaleret gloria gentis)
contrasts with the modesty which Walter affects in his pro-
logue. The theme of glory is continued in our introduction to
Alexander as an impatient youth chafing for war (1.27-32):

nondum prodierat naturae plana tenellis

infruticans lanugo pilis, Martique parabat
dissimiles proferre genas, cum pectore toto
arma puer sitiens Darium dare iura Pelasgis
gentibus imperiique iugo patris arva prementem
audit, et indignans his vocibus exprimit iram.

Not yet a man, Alexander is eager to avenge the wrongs

inflicted on the Greeks by Darius. Yet this first statement
concerning him has a potential for irony which will be realized
at the conclusion of the poem; the reader acquainted with the
fact that Alexander died «empoysened of thyn owene folk»

eae
will see that potential in Walter’s description of the young boy
thirsting (sitiens) for arms. This impatience is the cause of the
anger (his vocibus exprimit iram) which dominates Alexandet’s
first speech (1.33-47). He recalls that his ancestor Hercules
when still an infant killed the two snakes which attacked him
in his crib (16). And his final complaint (1.46-47: semperne
putabor / Nectanabi proles?) speaks to Alexander’s hatred of
anonymity. Walter then draws this part of the episode to a
close with the fine simile (1.49-58)—-which I discussed earlier
and to which I will return—comparing Alexander to a young
lion performing in his imagination deeds which he is not yet
able to accomplish in fact.
After youth, age: Aristotle enters and, perceiving Alexan-
der’s anger (1.73: accusabat enim occultam igneus iram), offers
him encouragement and advice. This speech (1.82-183), like
the rest of the scene, is apparently Walter’s own invention.
Although mistakenly dismissed by Raby as merely «an inter-
polated school-exercise» (17), it is actually the key passage in
the design of the whole epic. It serves two functions. Not
only is it an explication of the nature of heroic virtue, but it
also sets the groundwork for Walter’s attack on the inadequacy
of that definition. The speech is carefully structured. It begins
and ends with mentions of Alexander’s anger. Moreover, with
his first sentence Aristotle declares his role to be that of a
teacher (1.82-84):

indue mente virum, Macedo puer, arma capesse,

materiam virtutis habes, rem profer in actum,
quoque modo id possis, aures adverte, docebo.

Alexander has a potential for heroic excellence (materiam vit-

tutis) which Aristotle will teach him how to realize (rem profer

(16) See A. R. Anderson, «Herakles and his Successors,» Harvard

Studies in Classical Philology 39 (1928): 7-58.
(17) Raby, op. cit. II, p. 73; for a source of the ideas expressed
by Aristotle see R. Wisbey, «Die Aristotlesrede bei Walter von
Chatillon und Rudolf von Ems,» ZfdA 85 (1954-1955): 304-311.

=
in actum...docebo). After he completes his instruction, Walter
calls Aristotle a monitor virtutis (1.184). In between, Alexan-
der’s tutor discusses the nature of virtus, the vices which hinder
one from attaining it, and the reward in store for the individual
who does attain it.
As implied above (materiam virtutis habes), Aristotle’s
discourse turns on the philosophical idea that inner strength,
not possessions confers nobility on a man (1.99-104):

quem vero morum, non rerum copia ditat,

quem virtus extollit, habet quod praeferat auro,
quo patriae vitium redimat, quod conferat illi
et genus et formam: virtus non quaeritur extra:
non eget externis, qui moribus intus abundat:
nobilitas sola est, animum quae moribus ornat.

After stating the basic notion that virtue is an inner quality

(virtus non quaeritur extra), Aristotle turns to a discussion of
those vices which can undermine the stabilem mentem (1.107)
of the heroic man. When he points to avaritia (1.111-114)
as the first of these, one expects a discussion of that sin.
Instead, Aristotle offers Alexander advice on the proper
conduct of a general in battle. This section on martial valor
begins (1.115: parce humili, gracilis oranti frange superbum)
with an evocation of Anchises’ famous injunction to Aeneas
(Aeneid 6.853: parcere subjectis et debellare superbos). It
concludes with a return to the theme of avarice; for Aristotle
urges Alexander to be generous to his soldiers (1.146-151):

thesauros aperi, plue donativa maniplis,

vulneribus crudis et corde tumentibus aegro
muneris infundas oleum, gazisque reclusis
unge animos donis, aurique appone liquorem.
haec aegrae menti poterit medicina mederi:
sic inopi largusque medetur avaro.

This advice, surely a reference to the largitas for which Alexan-

der was famous in the twelfth century, is also a warning against

a ee
greed; for Aristotle suggests that generosity succeeds through
its appeal to the greed of lesser men (1.156; munus enim mores
confert, irretit avaros). Indeed, he then makes that warning
explicit by saying that neither a wall nor weapons can protect
an avaricious leader (1.163: non murus non arma ducem tutan-
tur avarum).
The other vices against which Aristotle warns his pupil
(1.164: cetera quid moneam?) are luxuries and amor. His
complaint about each is that it destroys rational control (1.167-
168: si Baccho Venerique vacas, qui cetera subdis / sub iuga
venisti). Aristotle’s original emphasis on virtus as an interior
quality is recalled in his language concerning drunkenness and
sexual passion, both of which weaken a man’s inner strength
(1.172: rigidos enervant haec duo mores). Of the former he
says te emolliat intus (1.164); of the latter, mens hebet interius
(1.170). Alexander’s monitor virtutis ends his speech with an
admonition against the emotion the sight of which prompted
him to address the boy (1.181-183):

vindictam differ, donec pertranseat ira,

nec meminisse velis odii post verbera: si sic
vixeris, aeternum extendes per saecula nomen.

These concluding words also express the reward for the man
who realizes his potential for greatness. The reward is glory
—his name prolonged forever (aeternum extendes per saecula
nomen). No other enticement is mentioned; for Alexander,
none is needed.
Aristotle’s speech is crucial to a proper understanding of
the Alexandreis. It describes the virtus which Alexander will
strive to achieve; but despite achieving it he will fail to become
a model of heroic excellence for the Christian world. For
Walter has embedded in this discourse the means by which he
will expose the inadequacy, by Christian standards, of that
virtus. I refer to the numerous allusions within the speech to
Boethius’ De Consolatione Philosophiae, a work with which
Walter could reasonably have assumed that every reader of his

= oe
 epic would be familiar. Boethius was, after all, an auctor, a
writer considered to be authoritative for the genre in which he
composed and a model worthy of imitation. The Consolation
was much used in the schools, a fact which is hardly supris-
ing (18). For the educative appeal of a dialogue in which
Lady Philosophy encourages and instructs a despairing man is
self-evident. I have mentioned the close association between
Alexander and Fortuna; and of course among the principal
themes of the Consolation is the complaint of Philosophy that
men mistakenly regard tangible things (among them power and
fame), which are by their nature ephemeral, as true goods.
Sunk in temporal cares and the quest for external possessions,
they neglect the light of contemplation, and follow instead
sensual pleasures. Such men place themselves in the power of
Fortuna, to whom are attributed alternations between worldly
prosperity and adversity. Those on Fortuna’s ever turning
wheel are never secure; for if they are raised to prosperity,
they know that soon they are to be lowered again. Although
Boethius argues later that Fortuna, strictly speaking, is an
illusion (since nothing really happens by chance in a divinely
ordained universe), nonetheless Boethius offersa vivid—and
not forgotten—picture of her control over those who place
their lives on her wheel by involving themselves exclusively
in the transitory world of created things.
The first identifiable Boethian reference in Aristotle’s
speech occurs in his argument that virtus is an inner quality
rather than a reflection of external possessions (1.102...103:
virtus non quaeritur extra...qui moribus intus abundat). Two
passages from the Consolation are pertinent here (2. pr.
4...pr. 5):

quid igitur o mortales extra petitis intra vos positam

felicitatem...itane autem nullum est proprium vobis
atque insitum bonum ut in externis ac sepositis
rebus bona vestra quaeratis?

(18) John Block Friedman, Orpheus in the Middle Ages

ay ad
Both passages contain the contrast between external and in-
ternal goods, and both decry the foolishness of seeking outside
what is obtainable only within. In like manner, Aristotle’s
warning against avarice begins with a reference to the Conso-
lation. His explanation that greed has the power to undermine
a stable mind (stabilem mentem) recalls the Boethian expla-
nation of the only stability that does exist (4. pr. 6):

omnium generatio rerum cunctusque mutabilium

naturarum progressus et quidquid aliquo movetur
modo, causas, ordinem, formas ex divinae mentis
stabilitate sortitur.

Notice that Philosophy, speaking here, is drawing the distinc-

tion between the mutable nature of the things of this world
(mutabilium naturarum progressus) and the stability of the
divine order (divinae mentis stabilitate). The power which rules
those obsessed with the transient goods of the mutable world
is, according to the Consolation, Fortuna. And the next
Boethian allusion in Aristotle’s speech is to her. I refer to his
description of war, the field of action in which Alexander is
to win his glory, as a game (1.118: dum luditur alea Martis).
Games of chance are of course natural and much used images
of Fortuna in medieval literature. We have already encountered
one example in Chaucer’s reference to dice (thy sys Fortune
hath turned to aas), and we will see that Walter makes dicing
a recurrent image of his epic. But more important for the
moment is the association of simply playing (luditur) with the
portrait of Fortuna in the Consolation. Consider her own
words (2. pr. 2):

haec nostra vis est, hunc continuum ludum ludimus;

rotam volubili orbe versamus, infima summis summa

(Cambridge, Mass., 1970), p. 96. The definitive study of the influence

of Boethius on medieval literature is Pierre Courcelle, La Consolation
de Philosophie dans la Tradition Littéraire, Antécédents et Posterité
de Boéce (Paris, 1967).

sot Pee
 infimis mutare gaudemus. ascende si placet, sed ea
lege ne utique cum ludicri mei ratio poscet, descen-
dere iniuriam putes.

Fortuna is playing a continuous game (hunc continuum ludum

ludimus). That game is the turning of her wheel; and the rule
of the game (ludicri mei ratio) is instability. We will see many
references in the Alexandreis to this important self-description.
With this one reference, however, Walter establishes the game
of war as a part of Fortuna’s larger game, a connection of
considerable significance for our understanding of Alexander’s
outlook on life.
An image which is prominent in the Consolation likewise
appears in Aristotle’s advice to Alexander concerning the
largitas necessary for a successful leader. Throughout the Con-
solation Philosophy is presented as the doctor whose medicine
will cure Boethius’ sickness, that is, his obsession with temporal
goods (1. pr. 2: «sed medicinae,» inquit «tempus est quam que-
tulae»). Yet Aristotle argues that earthly riches themselves
can be a medicine for a sick mind (1.150: haec aegrae menti...
medicina). This whole section seems to be a conscious pet-
version (cf. 1.151: sic inopi dives largusque medetur avaro) of
Boethius’ exhortation to generosity (2 pr. 5: avaritia semper
odiosos, claros largitas facit).
Finally, let us consider the very reward of virtus which
Aristotle holds out to the young Alexander—worldly glory, a
name extended per saecula. We have seen in Juvencus’ preface
one Christian refutation of the notion that secular literature can
provide «eternal» fame. That same misconception is attacked
strongly in the Consolation. Boethius tells Philosophy that he
has always desired a life of action because he feared a «silent»
virtus in his old age (2 pr. 7: sed materiam gerendis rebus opta-
vimus quo ne virtus tacita consenesceret). Philosophy replies
that the desire for glory is a vain and empty thing (2. pr. 7:
exilis et totius vacua ponderis); but even more interesting is
her contention that glory holds attraction for minds «not yet
fully brought to excellence by the perfecting of virtues» (2. pr.

mes
| ee
 7: mentes sed nondum ad extremam manum virtutum perduc-
tas). Later in the same conversation we encounter a withering
attack on the desire for fame, promised by Aristotle, which
Alexander proclaims to be his greatest desire later in the epic.
In the words of Lady Philosophy (2. pr. 7):

sed quam multos clarissimos suis temporibus viros

scriptorum inops delevit oblivio! quamquam quid
ipsa scripta proficiant, quae cum suis auctoribus
premit longior atque obscura vetustas? vos vero im-
mortalitatem vobis propagare videmini, cum futuri
famam temporis cogitatis. quod si aeternitatis infi-
nita spatia pertractes, quid habes quod de nominis
tui diuturnitate laeteris?

Our deeds, recorded or not, are doomed ultimately to oblivion.

Philosophy argues that it is foolish to imagine that writers can
grant immortality to one’s actions, since literature itself is
ephemeral. She goes on to say that in comparison with the
infinite reaches of eternity, the mere prolonging of one’s name
(nominis tui diuturnitate) is little cause for rejoicing. After an
illustration of the vastness of true eternity, she states (2. pr. 7):

ita fit ut quamlibet prolixi temporis fama, si cum

inexhausta aeternitate cogitetur, non parva sed plane
nulla esse videatur.

Fame, secular fame, of however long a duration, when con-

sidered against eternity, is exposed as «not a small thing but
almost nothing at all» (non parva sed plane nulla). She
concludes with a statement concerning the correct attitude of a
man, on the point of dying, toward glory. But my discussion
of that important remark must wait until the moment in the
Alexandreis when Alexander himself, on the brink of death,
makes reference to it.
In sum, the clustering of allusions to the Consolation in
the Alexandreis serves a purpose much like that served by
Gerald’s clustering of allusions to the Psychomachia in his

a= Ohi.
epic. In Aristotle’s long discourse, Walter has at once given a
«classical» definition of virtus, and established the means of
his attack on it. In a sense, one can say that the continuing
theme of the Alexandreis is a refutation of the reference to
Aristotle at the conclusion of his speech as being a monitor
virtutis (1.184). On the contrary, the reader of the epic will
be led to a recognition that Boethius’ exclamation in the Con-
solation (1. pr. 3: omnium magistra virtutum) is to a far better
teacher of a far superior doctrine.
The scene between Aristotle and Alexander continues with
Alexandetr’s response to the words of his tutor. That response
Walter describes in terms of gloria. The youth drinks in the
lesson, and his mind is goaded by a desire for praise (1.189:
laudum stimulis). As Alexander earlier had reproached himself
in comparison to Hercules, now Walter likens him to Neopto-
lemus wishing to do what even his father Achilles hardly could
accomplish (1.198-199: tunc tanta videres / velle Neoptolemum
quae vix expleret Achilles). However, Aristotle’s emphasis
upon rational control seems to have had less impact, for Alexan-
der prepares to rage (1.201: insanire) against first the Persians,
then the world. And thus ends the carefully designed prefatory
episode (1.1-202) of the Alexandreis. Walter has introduced
Alexander. He has also presented the basic elements of his
criticism of Alexander’s values—and by extension the values
of the classical heroic tradition. It is this criticism, not the
gests themselves of Alexander, that is the subject of the rest
of the narrative.
In the other major episode of Book One—Alexandet’s visit
to the tomb of Achilles (1.452-538)—Walter establishes that
a desire for glory and a recognition of the power of Fortuna
are the essential features of Alexander’s heroic outlook. The
intervening lines, however, contain two scenes which are
worthy of note. The first of these two scenes describes the
attempt by Cleadas to dissuade Alexander from destroying
Thebes. He reminds the young king of Aristotle’s advice
(1.328-335):

2.
 clara deum proles Macedo, fortissime regum,
cui favet astrorum series, cui quatuor orbis
climata despondent filo properante sorores,
cuius, ut invictus victis et parcere scires
supplicibus victor et debellare rebelles,
divinis toties monitis armavit anhelum
pectus Aristoteles, tune hanc, rex, funditus urbem
exitio delere paras?

His words evoke those of Aristotle’s discourse. The phrase

victis et parcere scires...et debellare rebelles recalls the admo-
nition parce humili...frange superbum (1.115). Later in his
speech Cleadas urges Alexander, to whom Aristotle had stressed
the importance of pietas (1.178: nec desit pietas), that he «learn
to be kind to the conquered» (1.341: disce pius victis). Cleadas’
unsuccessful plea concludes with the assertion that the kingdom
not propped by clemency is unstable (1.342: instabile est reg-
num, quod non clementia firmit). To a degree, of course, this
sententia is true; but we should at the same time remember
that, in Boethian terms, no kingdom of the sort Alexander
intends, even if strengthened by clementia, can ever be truly
stable.
The second passage of interest occurs as part of the de-
scription of the arrival of Alexander and his army in Asia
(1.440-441):

«iam satis est,» inquit, «socii, mihi sufficit una

haec regio: Europam vobis patriamque relinquo.»

Alexander utters these words as soon as he catches sight of

land. The scene is inspired by the following portion of Justin’s
narrative (11.5.4-5):

adunato deinde evercitu naves onerat, unde con-

specta Asia incredibili ardore mentis accensus duo-
decim deorum aras in belli vota statuit. patrimonium
omne suum, quod in Macedonia Europaque habebat,
amicis dividit, sibi Asiam sufficere praefatus.

os Gere
Walter is careful to keep Alexander’s statement that Asia is
enough for him. Indeed, he adds to the emphasis of this theme
by making the assertion a direct quote (mihi sufficit una / haec
regio). We will see that this passage is but the first of a series
of statements which build finally to the topos that the world
itself was insufficient for Alexander’s ambition.
When Alexander comes to the tomb of Achilles, he is
moved to deliver a long speech to his men. It is divided into
two parts. The first part concerns Fortuna (1.478-498):

«o Fortuna viri superexcellentior,» inquit,

«cuius Maeonium redolent praeconia vatem,
qui licet exanimem distraxerit Hectora, robur
et patrem patriae, summum tamen illud honoris
arbitror augmentum, quod tantum tantus habere
post obitum meruit praeconem laudis Homerum.
o utinam nostros resoluto corpore tantis
laudibus extollat non invida fama triumphos!
nam cum lata meas susceperit area leges,
cum domitus Ganges, et cum pessumdatus Atlas,
cum vires Macetum Boreas, cum senserit Ammon,
et contentus erit sic solo principe mundus
ut solo sole, hoc unum mihi deesse timebo,
post mortem cineri ne desit fama sepulto,
Elysiisque velim solam hanc praeponere campis.
nec vos excutiat coepto gens provida bello,
Argolici, Fortuna licet quandoque minetur
aspera, quae numquam vultu persistit eodem.
blanditiis indignus erit mollique potiri
Fortuna, qui dura pati vel amara recusat:
nam quae dura prius fuerant mollescere vidi.

Alexander’s opening exclamation is the first explicit mention

_ of Fortuna in the epic. The mention, and the importance of
Fortuna in Alexander’s frame of thought, could hardly be made
more emphatic. In Alexander’s mind, Fortuna and glory (prae-
conia) are linked. He envies the glory which the Iliad brought
to Achilles, and desires his own herald of praise (praeconem
laudis) to spread his name. Indeed, a lack of fame after his
RCFE
death (post mortem...ne desit fama) is Alexaider’s only fear;
and we ate reminded that it is precisely such fama that Aristo-
tle held out to his pupil as the natural result of virtus. On the
other hand, we have seen that the Consolation contains a state-
ment on the futility of the hope that any writer can grant true
fame. Goaded by his desire for glory, nevertheless, Alexander
urges his men not to desist from the war which they have just
begun. To encourage them against losing heart in times of
hardship, he reminds them of Fortuna’s fickle nature (quae
numquam vultu persistit eodem); but with this admission, of
course, he reaffirms the notion of the instability of secular
affairs (19).
The second part of Alexander’s speech (1.499-538) recounts
a dream which has given him confidence of success despite his
expressed: knowledge of the changing face of Fortuna (1.500:
unde haec tanta meae surgat fiducia menti) (20). The im-
mediate source of this tale—the miraculous appearance to
Alexander of the High Priest of Jerusalem—is Josephus, or
rather a Latin epitome of his Antiguitates. But Walter has
made significant changes in the story which he received. The
first of these changes is to make the recounting of the vision
a part of Alexander’s speech at the tomb of Achilles, thus tying
it more closely to the themes of Alexander’s thirst for glory
and of the role of Fortuna in human affairs. Walter also adds
a description of Alexander’s emotional state at the time of the
vision (1.504-515):

(19) Malkiel’s study of the theme of glory in the Alexandreis

(op. cit., pp. 128-135) is inadequate and misleading. In order to
argue that Walter is extolling glory as a goal of heroic activity, she
separates the references to the Consolation which she notices from
the main body of her chapter. Interestingly, her interpretation of
the theme of glory in the Libro de Alexandre has been attacked by
Ian Michael, The Treatment of Classical Material in the «Libro de
Alexandre» (Manchester, 1970), pp. 278-280, as ignoring the poet’s
criticism of Alexander.
(20) Walter may have taken his assumption of Alexander’s trust
in Fortuna from Curtius 7.9.1.

ee: pe
 nocte fere media, somnum suadentibus astris,
pulvinar regale premens penetralibus altis
solus eram: socios laxabat inertia somni,
at mea pervigiles urebant pectora curae:
cumque super regni ratio novitate labaret,
incertus, hostes sequerer, patriamve tuerer,
in neutro stabilis, facturus utrumque videbar.
ecce locum subita radiantem lampade vidi,
et coeleste iubar noctis caligine pressa
irrupisse fores, tenebrasque diescere vidi:
cum timor incuteret mentem, testemque pavoris
sentirem trepidos sudorem errare per artus.

It is the middle of the night. Alexander is alone, unable to

sleep, beset by cares and doubts. Then he is frightened (cum
timor incuteret mentem) by the sudden appearance of a man
in foreign garb who promises to him ultimate victory in his
quest for world domination in return for sparing «my people,»
and disappears (1.532-536):
«egredere, o Macedo fortissime, finibus,» inquit,
«a patriis, omnemque tibi pessumdabo terram.
at si me tibi forte vides occurrere talem,
parce meis,» dixit, superasque recessit in auras,
discedensque domum miro perfudit odore.

By his changes Walter makes the scene conform to a common

pattern of literary dream visions; in addition, his language
reflects the attempt to evoke simultaneously three specific
models—the Aeneid, Bellum Civile and Consolation—and
through such evocation to invest the scene with greater
meaning.
There are four visions in the Bellum Civile. This first
vision of Walter’s epic draws on the first in Lucan’s. Caesar,
on reaching the banks of the Rubicon, sees a vision of Rome
herself (1.185-203). The situations of the two conquerors
differ: While the High Priest promises victory to Alexander,
Rome attempts to dissuade Caesar. Each man is frightened at
first, but this response is attributable more to tradition than
6G =
to conscious modelling. More important, each seene is used to
provide a context for expressing the leader’s confidence in his
Fortuna. For Alexander, the vision proves that Fortuna,
though by her nature unstable, favors him. Caesar, on the other
hand, rejects Rome’s warning (1.223-227):

Caesar, ut adversam superato gurgite ripam

attigit, Hesperiae vetitis et constitit arvis,
«hic,» ait «hic pacem temerataque iura relinquo;
te, Fortuna, sequor. procul hinc iam foedera sunto;
credidimus satis his, utendum est iudice bello.»

After crossing the Rubicon, he exclaims his intention to «follow

Fortuna» (te, Fortuna, sequor). This is the first mention of
Fortuna in the Bellum Civile, just as the speech in which
Alexander describes his vision contains the first explicit men-
tion of Fortuna in the Alexandreis. Later, Lucan makes a
statement explaining what Fortuna means to Caesar (7.796:
Fortunam superosque suos in sanguine cernit). This definition
can also, I think, be applied to the understanding of Fortuna
by the Alexander of Walter’s epic.
Now the Aeneid. The vanishing of the High Priest from
Alexander’s sight contains in the phrase superasque recessit
in auras an unmistakable allusion to Creusa’s departure from
Aeneas after her imago appears to him in Troy (Aeneid
2.790-791):

haec ubi dicta dedit, lacrimantem et multa volentem

dicere deseruit, tenuisque recessit in auras.

This allusion is most suggestive. The words of Creusa remove

from Aeneas much of his indecision about leaving Troy. In
like manner, the promise of the High Priest gives the wavering
Alexander the confidence to depart for Asia.
The theme of indecision ties the vision of Alexander even
more suggestively to the Consolation. Alexander’s description
of himself as in neutro stabilis is the third reference to «stab-
ility» in the epic. Aristotle had warned that avarice can un-

ats’ OR
dermine the rational control (mentem stabilem) which is a
essential component of virtus; then Cleadas had warned against
the instability of a kingdom ruled without clementia. Both
these earlier statements have a connection with the theme of
Fortuna. The stable mind, Aristotle suggests, should not be
affected by the vicissitudes of experience; and I have already
noted that Philosophy’s argument is predicated on the assump-
tion that there can be no regnum stabile on earth. Moreover,
Alexander’s indecision is directly tied to Fortuna; for he
mentions it at the beginning of his explanation of his confi-
dence despite his knowledge of the mutable affections of luck.
The vision of the High Priest, as Alexander tells it, links him
to Boethius. Each man, distraught, receives a visit from
someone in strange garb who will resolve his concern about
his present state. A verbal allusion enhances this similarity.
Boethius cannot at first identify Philosophy because his vision
is clouded by tears (1. pr. 1: ego cuius acies mersa caligaret).
Alexander beholds the High Priest when a sudden light dis-
perses the clouds of night (noctis caligine pressa).
This complex of allusions to three other works—the
Bellum Civile, Aeneid and Consolation—suggests at least two
very different lines of thematic development available to
Walter. Does Alexander’s vision, like the visit of Philosophy
to Boethius, mark the beginning of an epic journey toward
beatitudo? If so, then Walter’s goal would seem to be an
integration of the moral and physical quests, much as we now
realize Vergil adds a moral dimension to the wanderings of
Odysseus. The corresponding visions of Aeneas and even
Caesar, after all, both occur at critical moments of hesitation.
Rome’s plea cannot dissuade Caesar from the fateful act of
crossing the Rubicon, while Creusa’s words help dissolve the
unwillingness of Aeneas to leave Troy. Conversely, Walter
has before him the possibility of using the Consolation as the
basis for an attack on the imperfect journey, as he understands
it, of a hero like Aeneas toward worldly success without
spiritual enlightenment. Alexander may embark on a series of
conquests which will bring the world at his feet but not the
a
intellectual growth attained by Boethius inside his jail cell. In
either case, Walter’s decision will be reflected in his handling
of the themes of gloria and Fortuna.
Having established the importance of these two themes in
Book One, in Book Two Walter develops them with specific
reference to the careers of Alexander and Darius. Our attention
is directed first to the former, then to the latter as they move
inexorably toward a confrontation at Issus. First, Alexander.
In Book Two the Macedonian, who has talked about the
variability of human life (1.494-498), now experiences it for
the first time when he decides to go swimming (2.148-154):

purus et illimis mediam perlabitur urbem

Cydnus, qui gelidos haurit de fontibus amnes,
contentus sese est, nullasque aliunde ruentis
admittit torrentis aquas, sed gurgite ludit
calculus, et refluo lapsu lascivit arena.
hic primum didicit Magnus durare salutem
nulli continuam, sed mixta adversa secundis.

While swimming in the cold waters of the Cydnus, Alexander

suddenly is stricken seriously ill. After he is dragged un-
conscious to the bank, the Greek army pours out its grief—to
Fortuna (2.173-185):

flos iuvenum Macedo, quis te impetus inter amicos

nudum, quis casus inopina morte subegit?
improba, mobilior folio Fortuna caduco,
tigribus asperior, diris immitior hydris,
Tisiphone horridior, monstro truculentior omni,
cur metis ante diem florentes principis annos?
hactenus exstiteras mater, quis te impulit illi
velle novercari, quem promissum sibi regem
mundus adoptabat? sed quis manet exitus illos,
optime rex, quibus a patria tua castra secutis
non licet in patriam loca per deserta reverti?
numquid nos sine te medios mittemur in hostes?
sed quis dignus erit tanto succedere regi?

ee
OM ee
Fortuna is more fickle than a leaf, harsher than a tiger, the
most horrible of all monsters because she has taken Alexander
from them. They are concerned for him, and for themselves.
Who will lead them now that they are stranded in Asia?
Fortuna chances to hear this complaint while she sits
turning her wheel (2.186: rotam volvendo). This picture, with
its allusion to the Consolation (2. pr. 3: rotam volubili orbe
versamus) (21), prepares us for Fortuna’s own statement on
her behalf (2.190-200):

inscia mens hominum quanta caligine fati

pressa iacet, quae me toties iniusta lacessit!
ius reliquis proprium licet exercere deabus,
me solam excipiunt: quae dum bona confero magnis
laudibus attollor, sed quando retraxero rebus
imperiosa manum rea criminis arguor, ac si
naturae stabilis sub conditione teneri
possem: si semper apud omnes una manerem
aut eadem, iam non merito Fortuna vocarer.
lex mihi natura posita est sine lege moveri,
solaque mobilitas stabilem facit.

By this speech Walter is without question tying the Fortuna

of the Alexandreis to her counterpart in the Consolation. The
argument of her reply is modelled on Fortuna’s long self-
defense in Consolation 2. pr. 2. The verbal echo of quando
retraxero...manum (cf. 2. pr. 2: nunc mihi retrahere manum
libet) enhances that resemblance. Walter seems also to have
had in mind the following passage from the Consolation
eo) ae

quid est igitur o homo quod te in maestitiam luc-

tumque deiecit? novum, credo, aliquid inusitatum-
que vidisti. tu Fortunam putas erga te esse mutatam;

(21) Note Walter’s foreshadowing of this phrase at 2.38-39:

forma rotunda pilae sphaeram speciemque rotundi,
quem mihi subiiciam, pulchre determinat orbis.

a OG
 erras. hi semper eius mores sunt ista natura. servavit
circa te propriam potius in ipsa sui mutabilitate
constantiam. talis erat cum blandiebatur, cum tibi
falsae inlecebris felicitatis alluderet. deprehendisti
caeci numinis ambiguos vultus.

The speaker is Philosophy, her argument that one should not

complain because Fortuna is acting according to her nature.
Here too Fortuna is blind; and the oxymoron of mutabilitate
constantiam in this passage may have provided the model for
Walter’s play on mobilitas stabilem at the end of his own
passage.
The prominence of Fortuna in this scene is Walter’s inven-
tion. The general line of the narrative follows Curtius’ account
(3.5-6...17); but the lament of the soldiers as given by Curtius
makes no mention of Fortuna. She is referred to only in
passing by Alexander after he recovers consciousness and de-
mands a physician (3.5.11: «in quo me,» inquit, «articulo rerum
mearum Fortuna deprehenderit, cernitis»). Not only does
Walter make Fortuna the subject of the soldiers’ lament but
even changes the description of the waters of the Cydnus to
foreshadow her importance in the scene. Curtius had merely
described the clarity and gentle course of the frigid waters;
but he makes no mention of the playful eddies and frolicking
sands (gurgite ludit / calculus, et refluo lapsu lascivit arena)
which Walter emphasizes in the last line of his description.
But of course the idea of play (ludit) invites thoughts of Fortu-
na. Alexander is learning of her fickleness (nulli continuam)
more than about health; and the soldiers are correct in directing
their dismay to her. Moreover, Walter also introduces into
his scene the companion theme of glory. In Curtius Alexander
says that he is unwilling to die an obscure and ignoble death
(2.5.10: obscuraque et ignobili morte). Walter is more specific.
Alexander demands to be cured lest he die inglorius (2.219)
and sine laude (2.220).
After the recovery of Alexander, the narrative turns to
Darius; but Fortuna continues to occupy center stage. Darius
receives good advice (2.286: utile consilium), which he rejects,

aa OF
 to divide his treasure on the chance that Fortuna favor the
Greeks in the first encounter (2.281-282: si Fortuna, quod
absit, / faverit Argolicis). This connection of war with For-
tuna is strengthened when Thymodas, in presenting a plan of
attack, argues (2.284-285).

non mediocris enim furor est exponere bellis

uno velle simul Fortunae cuncta sub ictu.

Darius’ reply continues the now well established linking of the

themes of Fortuna and glory. It may be madness to risk all,
he says, but to proceed otherwise would bring him shame
(2.295: dedecus) and ill repute (2.297: saeva infamia).
Darius decides, instead, to meet Alexander in a pitched
battle; and in a speech which parallels Alexander’s address to
his troops in Book One, he tries to lift the spirits of his men
(2.325-371). This speech, like Alexandet’s, is divided into two
parts. The first part (2.325-353) deals primarily with glory
and Fortuna; the second part (2.354-371) describes a confi-
dence inspiring dream. Darius begins by calling Alexander
«that illegitimate boy» (2.333: spurius ille puer), and urges the
Persians to remember their own proud heritage (2.342-347):

scire velim, Macedo, quibus inspirante Megaera

artibus illius Cyri te posse potiri
imperio iactas, cui Lydia, Croesus et omnes
curvavere genu quocumque sub axe tyranni,
qui licet extinctus me successore superstes
regnat et in vivo vivit Fortuna sepulti.

But Darius’ words carry an unintentionally ironic undertone

for the reader familiar with the Consolation. His emphasis is
upon the superiority which the Persians derive from their past
greatness (2.357: monumenta priorum) and from his own
inheritance of the Fortuna of Cyrus. Boethius, however,
attacks the very notion of inherited glory (6. pr. 2: quare
splendidum te, si tuam non habes, aliena claritudo non efficit).
Moreover, in her apologia Fortuna provides an alternate

Sey
meaning for the exemplum of Cyrus and Croesus. Her point,
quite naturally, is the inconstancy of human affairs (2. pr. 2):

an tu mores ignorabas meos? nesciebas Croesum

regem Lydorum Cyro paulo ante formidabilem mox
deinde miserandum rogi flammis traditum misso
caelitus imbre defensum?... quid tragoediarum cla-
mor aliud deflet nisi indiscreto ictu Fortunam felicia
regna vertentem?

Croesus, once a terror to Cyrus, was rendered pitiable

(miserandum). Fortuna overturns happy conditions with an
impartial blow (indiscreto ictu). And this reference to the
ictus Fortunae takes us back to Thymodas’ unheeded warning
against placing too much confidence sub ictu Fortunae.
As did Alexander, Darius now recounts a dream to explain
his confident anticipation of victory. The vision is deceptive.
Curtius’ version of the event includes the pessimistic interpre-
tations of some of Darius’ counsellors (3.3.2-7). Walter omits
these, but adds an apostrophe to the Persian soldiers (2.381:
quo ruitis peritura manus?) as they head toward defeat.
Walter builds to the battle itself by directing our attention
alternately to Alexander and Darius. A simile comparing
Alexander to a wolf (2.398-407) reminds us that the Macedo-
nian has indeed reached maturity. Then we see Darius deploy-
ing his forces (2.414-421):

Darius tamen, agmine rursus

disposito, caute secum deliberat hostem
milite consulto vi circumcingere multa.
utile propositum regique suisque salubre,
quod ratus est, verum ratione potentior omni
discussit Fortuna procax, quae sola tuetur
tuta, gravata levat, cassat rata, foedera rumpit,
infirmat firmum, fixum movet, ardua frangit.

The idea is taken from Curtius (3.8.30: ceterum destinata

salubriter omni ratione potentior Fortuna discussit). But the

ge? 22
amplificatio is Walter’s. Fortuna is more than powerful; she
is in essence the protagonist here. Walter then emphasizes the
unfortunate state of her plaything Darius with two punning
references to the «stability» (2.422: stabilita... 424: stabilem
peditum...vallum) of the opposing force.
Alexander now addresses his army (2.450-486). Not un-
expectedly he begins with Fortuna and ends with glory. For-
tuna, he announces, has prepared the way for victory (2.450-
456):

martia progenies, quorum ditione teneri,

legibus adstringi totus desiderat orbis,
ecce dies optata, parat qua provida nobis
solvere promissum toties Fortuna triumphum,
cuius in Europa dudum praeludia gessi,
cum genus Aonidum totamque a sedibus urbem
delestis, sologue metu domuistis Athenas.

Alexander’s trust in Fortuna remains firm (provida...Fortuna);

and after exhorting the men to fight cruelly and without mercy,
he concludes (2.484-486): ;

proelia non spolium mecum discernite, cedant

praemia, praeda meis, mihi gloria sufficit una:
rem vobis, mihi nomen amo.

Another of Walter’s additions, this is Alexandet’s second state-

ment of what is «enough» for him (cf. 1.440-441). His sole
concern is fame. Glory alone suffices (mihi gloria sufficit una).
Alexander loves his name (mihi nomen amo), that is, the ex-
tension of his name per saecula.
The final line of Alexander’s speech blends into what ap-
pears to be the beginning of the battle (2.486-496):

sic fatur, et ecce

concurrunt acies: Persae clamore soluto
horrisonis vexant tenues ululatibus auras,
classica terrifico destringunt arva boatu.

pes eee
 hinc fit et inde sonus, lituis eliditur aer,
et referunt raucos montana cacumina cantus,
quaeque sonos iterat purum sine corpore nomen
responsura fuit numquam tot vocibus echo.

Walter devotes seven lines to various noise topoi, ending with

a learned mythological allusion to Echo. He then seems to
turn to the topos of the glitter of the weapons (2.494-495):

arma tamen Darii multo sudore fabrili

parta micant, referuntque virum monumenta
[priorum.

Instead, Walter interrupts the flow of the narrative to give

a lengthy ekphrasis devoted to the shield of Darius (2.497-539).
Such a digression is, to be sure, a conventional feature of
epic (22). But this fact does not explain why Walter inserts
the descriptio here or his apparent awkwardness in doing so.
I suggest that the suddenness of the transition is for emphasis,
and that Walter places the passage at the conclusion of Book
Two so that its content can reinforce the meaning of what has
gone before. On the shield is depicted the entire history of
the Persians; but all else is literally circumscribed by the
accomplishments of Cyrus (2.526-529):

sed totum circuit orbem

atque oras ambit clipei celeberrima Cyri
historia; a tanto superari principe gaudet
Lydia et ambiguo deceptus Apolllline Croesus.

We meet again the story of Cyrus and Croesus to which Darius

made reference in his speech (2.342-347). There the theme
of the inconstancy of glory was only implied by the reference
to Cyrus’ Fortuna. Now Walter makes his intention clear by
using this exemplum to explain the point of the ekphrasis
(2:555-539);

(22) See the comment by Raby, op. cit. II, p. 74.

— 100—
 proh gloria fallax
imperii, proh quanta patent ludibria sortis
humanae! Cyrum terrae pelagique potentem,
delicias orbis, quem summo culmine rerum
extulerat virtus, quem fama locarat in astris,
qui rector composque sui, qui totus et unus
malleus orbis erat, imbellis femina fregit.

Earlier Walter used Cyrus’ defeat of Croesus as an exemplum

of the inevitable alternation of success and failure in human
life. Cyrus too, raised to a pinnacle by virtus, had to fall. As
his story encircles the shield, so his life reflects the wheel of
Fortuna. The mention of Cyrus both concludes the digession
and provokes Walter’s exclamation. The language of that
exclamation—indeed the very notion of an exclamation—was
inspired by the words of Philosophy in the Consolation (3. pr.
6: gloria vero quam fallax saepe, quam turpis est!). The glory
for which Darius and Alexander are striving is a fleeting thing.
Walter has interrupted the battle scene to make that point.
In Book Two, then, Walter both sets the scene for the
battle of Issus and denigrates its importance. The allusions to
the Consolation in Fortuna’s apologia point to a Boethian in-
_spiration for her portrait in the Alexandreis. Other reminis-
cences of the Consolation are used to cast the quest for gloria
in a wholly negative light. At the same time Walter emphasi-
zes the desire of both Alexander and Darius to gain the very
kind of fame which is dismissed as vanitas. As they rush
to battle, they are shown to be fighting for a transient and
ultimately unimportant prize.
The action of Book Three contrasts the situations of the
two antagonists in a way which illustrates the paradox, arti-
culated by Philosophy in the Consolation, that Fortuna when
adverse is more profitable to men than when she is favorable
(2. pr. 8: etenim plus hominibus reor adversam quam prospe-
ram prodesse Fortunam). The narrative reveals the two heroes
on the wheel of Fortuna. In begins with the defeat of Darius
and the capture of his wife and son. Yet by the last lines a
«greater Darius» (arg. 3.7-8: Darius reparato robore rursus /

— 101—
maior) has emerged, while the victor Alexander is bedeviled
by sedition. ‘
At the beginning of the book, Alexander seems enviable in
every respect. His army wins the battle. He himself shows
not only courage but also incredible restraint. When he is
attacked by the seer Zoroas, he even allows himself to be
wounded in the thigh before he is forced to kill him (3.140-
188). After the battle, Walter sharply contrasts the brutal
actions of the soldiers (3.225-233) with Alexander’s clementia
(3.236: tanta est clementia regis) and love of virtus (3.241-
242: tantus enim virtutis amor tunc temporis illi / pectore
regnabat). But life on the wheel is hardly secure. In mid-line
Walter shifts to a prediction of Alexander’s fall—not from
success, but from virtus (3.242-244):

si perdurasset in illo
ille tenor, non est quo denigrare valeret
crimine candentem titulis infamia famam.

This statement contains an interesting interplay of ideas.

Walter says that Alexander’s fame would have been unsullied
had he endured in his noble behavior; and yet fame is associated
with Fortuna, and in the realm of Fortuna nothing can stay
the same. The following lines continue to lament Alexander’s
eventual decline, and Walter seems to follow Curtius in
attributing that moral decay to the influence of Fortuna (3.248:
corrupit Fortuna physim); for his success had brought Alexan-
der «wealth, the begetter of luxury» (3.247: genetrix opulentia
luxus)—these words being a recollection of Aristotle’s warning
against the corrupting power of avaritia and luxuries.
Unexpectedly we now learn that Darius, though defeated,
has in the workings of Fortuna a medicina mali (3.272). I refer
to the death of the traitorous governor of Damascus. Walter
repeats the notion found in Curtius (3.13.17: opportunum so-
lacium) that the destruction of this man was a solace for Darius
(3.266-267: Dario solamen id unum / ...fuit); but he adds to
his version a lesson concerning Fortuna (3.266-273):

— 102—
 Dario solamen id unum
damnorum luctusque fuit, cum nuntius ipsum
artificem sceleris afferret in agmine primo
arte perisse sua, nec iniquam sustinet ultra
dicere Fortunam, quae iusta lance rependit
sontibus interdum, prout fraus ignava meretur.
haec Dario medicina mali: sic paene malorum
omnia cum quodam veniunt incommoda fructu.

The death of the traitor teaches Darius not to label Fortuna

«unfair» (iniquam); for her impartial, or better amoral, ming-
ling of success and failure results occasionally in a balancing of
the scales. There is some compensation along with almost all
evils (sic paene malorum / omnia cum quodam veniunt incom-
moda fructu). Thus Darius in failure gains a degree of under-
standing concerning the workings of Fortuna and even solace
from that understanding, while the successful Alexander begins
a plunge into vice (3.249: vitiorum cautibus haerens) because
of Fortuna’s favor. In this respect we can see in the contrast
drawn between the two at the beginning of Book Three an
evocation of the Boethian paradox.
Three other references to Fortuna in this book emphasize
further her contribution to Alexander’s military success; at the
same time, they recall the instability of such favor by fore-
shadowing his death. First, during the siege of Gaza an
attempt by the populace to resist Fortuna (3.347: Fortuna...
evertere) by killing Alexander fails. This failure Walter
attributes to the immovable order of the Fates (3.352-353:
fatorum...inevitabilis ordo... / series immobilis); but his point
is that they are preserving him only for a different death ten
years later (3.354-358):
erravit tremulenta manus, ferroque perire
non patitur Lachesis, cui iam fatale venenum
confectumque diu lethea faece vitrina
pyxide condierat mediante favore suorum
porrectura duci dea post duo lustra bibendum.

It is of interest to note here that Walter, like Gerald in the

— 103—
Waltharius, seems intent upon keeping the ending of his epic
in our minds. Now we know that poison willbe the means
of Alexander’s murder.
The second of the three references is to the attempt of
Darius to deflect the course of Fortuna (3.441: Fortunae
flectere cursum), that is, defeat Alexander; but again his plan
is to be foiled by Alexander’s luck (3.448-449: sorte secunda /
usus Alexander). The third reference to Fortuna occurs after
the opposing armies have pitched camp. An eclipse of the
moon frightens Alexander’s men, who are moved to the point
of rebellion (3.489-495). Walter introduces into his account
of this episode, which otherwise follows Curtius (4.10.1-12)
rather closely, a speech by the soothsayer Aristander (3.501-
538). His opening words (3.503: parcite, ait, vanis incessere
fata querelis) echo the beginning of Fortuna’s apologia in the
Consolation (2. pr. 2: quid tu homo ream me cotidianis agis
querelis?).’ He goes on to explain the eclipse as merely a
natural event which follows discernible laws. At the end of
Aristander’s discourse Walter places another reference to For-
tuna missing in Curtius’ version (3.526-529):

dixit et exemplis veterum pro teste revolvit

Persidis acta ducum, quibus incumbente flagello
Fortunae obscuro lugubris Cynthia cornu
palluerat.

These added allusions to Fortuna make the scene all the more
effective by building on the common association of the waxing
and waning moon with Fortuna (cf. Carmina Burana 14.1: 0
Fortuna velut luna). They also give added significance to the
description of the army—taken from Curtius—after it is con-
vinced by Aristander’s words (3.529-537):

stetit ergo ratum, quod cana senectus

arguerat, meruitque fidem sententia vatis,
editaque in medium flexit pavitantia vulgi
corda superstitio, qua nil adstrictius ad se
inclinat turbam, regit ora manusque refrenat.

mae
|” eo
 quae cum saeva, potens, mutabilis, aestuat aestu
multivagae mentis, vana si forte movetur
relligione, ducum spreto moderamine, vatum
imperium subit et regum contemnit habenas.

Walter indicates in this passage the perverse result of Aris-

tander’s reasoned argument. His talk of a fixed order to
natural occurrences (3.506: haec certo ordine servant) has been
used to arouse in the soldiers a superstitio which renders them
more tractable. Alexander takes full advantage of their sudden
confidence (3.538: fiducia fati) to break camp and set up battle
conditions even though it is the middle of the night. As for
the men as they commit themselves to follow Alexander, they
are a crowd which is saeva, potens, mutabilis. In sum, Walter
attaches to them adjectives just as descriptive of Fortuna her-
self. In following Alexander, they follow her.
Book Four offers something of a pause in the flow of the
narrative. Much of it is spent describing Alexandetr’s indecision
on the eve of the battle of Arbela, which will not take place
until the next book. Moreover, we have in this book two
long ekphraseis—the tomb of Darius’ wife and the temple of
Victory. There is no interruption, however, in the develop-
ment of the underlying argument of the epic—that Alexander’s
devotion to Fortuna and desire for glory prevent him from
being a true exemplar of virtus. Consider, for example, the
treatment by Walter of the aftermath of the death of Darius’
wife. The Persian king, moved by reports of the respect which
Alexander showed her, makes an offer—sprinkled, to be sure,
with threats—of peace and reconciliation. Alexander’s angry
rejection of that offer contains the expected emphasis on For-
tuna and glory (4.131-141):

consulis arbitrium tulit aegre Magnus, «et a me,

si essem Parmenion, oblata pecunia palmae
praeferretur, ait, mallemque inglorius esse,
quam sine divitiis palmam cum laude mereri.
at nunc securus sub paupertatis amictu
regnat Alexander: regem me glorior esse,

— 105—
 non mercatorem: Fortunae venditor absit.
nil venale mihi: si reddendos fore constat,
gratius hos gratis reddi donoque remitfi
censeo quam censu: pretium si dona sequantur,
gratia non sequitur, nec habent commercia grates.»

Alexander is incensed when Parmenio counsels the acceptance

of Darius’ offer. Unlike his officer, Alexander is unwilling to
do without glory in favor of wealth; for he is a king, not a
merchant or «purchaser of Fortuna» (Fortunae venditor absit).
But Alexander’s proud words include as well a hint of his
downfall. When he speaks of reigning securely under the
mantle of poverty (nunc securus sub paupertatis amictu), we
are reminded both of the insecurity of all earthly power and
of the opulentia which has been cited as the cause of his
slipping into vice.
The episode concludes with the construction and ornamen-
tation of a tomb for Stateira; and on it the Jew Apelles sculpts
the events of Old Testament history from the creation of the
world to Ezra. These scenes complement the depiction of
Persian history on Darius’ shield (2.494-539). The one figure
who appears in both e&phraseis is Cyrus. On the shield, his
mention is the cause of Walter’s exclamation concerning gloria
fallax, with emphasis on Cyrus’ destruction at the height of
his greatness by a woman (2.539: imbellis femina fregit). In
the latter descriptio, Cyrus is mentioned after Walter provides
figural interpretations of events leading to the birth and death
of Christ (4.258-268). In contrast to the role of a woman in
the demise of Cyrus, here we have emphasis on the role of
a woman in the salvation of mankind itself (4.259: virgo
concupiet). Implied also in Walter’s treatment is a distinction
between the secular history depicted on the shield and the
events of the Old Testament on the tomb. The former, like
Darius and Alexander, is tied to the vicissitudes of Fortuna;
the latter is the prelude to something truly great and permanent.
The rest of Book Four, which depicts Alexander’s crisis of
confidence immediately before the battle of Arbela, establishes
the fact that he cannot imagine any force except Fortuna

— 106—
exercising control over his life. Walter has taken what is a
relatively minor scene in Curtius and amplified it to give it
greater impact and deeper meaning. The heart of Curtius’
version is worth citing (4.13.14-17): .

similis apud Macedones quoque sollicitudo erat;

noctemque, velut in eam certamine edicto, metu
egerunt. Alexander, non alias magis territus, ad vota
et preces Aristandrum vocari iubet. ille in candida
veste verbenas manu praeferens, capite velato, praei-
bat preces regi Iovem Minervamque Victoriam pro-
pitianti, tunc quidem, sacrificio rite perpetrato,
reliquum noctis acquieturus in tabernaculum rediit.
sed nec somnum capere nec quetem pati poterat;
modo e iugo montis aciem in dextrum Persarum
cornu demittere agitabat, modo recta fronte con-
currere hosti, interdum haesitare an potius in lae-
vum detorqueret agmen. tandem gravatum animi
anxietate corpus altior somnus oppressit. iamque
luce orta duces ad accipienda imperia convenerant,
insolito circa praetorium silentio attoniti... ad haec
Alexander: «credisne me prius somnum capere po-
tuisse quam exonerarem animum sollicitudine quae
quietem morabatur?» signumque pugnae tuba dari
iussit...haud alias tam alacrem viderant regem et
ex vultu eius interrito certam spem victoriae augu-
rabantur.

Uncertain what strategy to employ, Alexander is unable to

sleep. When at last he falls asleep, it is an unusually deep
slumber. When Parmenio wakes the king, he simply says that
he could not rest until he had resolved his doubts. He orders
the battle begun; and he looks so confident that the soldiers
assume victory to be certain.
Walter’s changes in the episode begin with Curtius’ com-
ment about Alexander’s state of concern, which Walter turns
into a declaration that the sight of the two armies struck fear
into Alexander’s heart (4.313-315):

— 107—
 quae cuncta viro, si credere fas est,
incussere metum, facilemque ad nobile pectus
corque giganteum reor adscendisse pavorem.

He then inserts an extended simile to emphasize not only

Alexander’s alarm but also the resulting indecision in his mind
(4.316-327):

non alio Tiphys curarum fluctuat aestu,

cui blandita diu Zephyri moderantia solo
flamine contentam duxit sine remige puppim,
Nereidumque chorus placidis epulatur in undis,
si procul instantes videat fervere procellas,
et celeres phocas imis a sedidus Auster
praemittens, madidis iam verberet aera pennis.
inclamat sociis, laxisque rudentibus ipse
convolat ad clavam laterique aplustre maritat:
non secus, ut vidit tot milibus arva prementes
barbaricos instare globos, iam credere fas est
magnanimum timuisse ducem.

The image of a storm tossed ship (sine remige puppim) was

commonly used to express the notion of a life controlled by
the power of Fortuna. One source for this image is, of course,
the Consolation (2. pr. 2):

ius est mari nunc strato aequore blandiri, nunc pro-

cellis ac fluctibus inhorrescere.

Not surprisingly, the presence of the theme of Fortuna is

followed by a reference to glory. Alexander seeks Parmenio’s
advice; but when that advice turns out to be a night attack,
he rejects it (4.353-366):

hic latronis ait mos et sollertia furum,

quam mihi suggeritis, quorum spes unica, voti
summa, nocere dolis et fallere fraude latenti.
gloria nostra dolo non militet: ut nihil obstet,
quod mihi candorem famae fuligine labis
obscurare queat, iam non angustia saltus

— 108—
 et Cilicum fauces, Dariive absentia segnis,
nec furtiva placent timidae suffragia noctis.
agegrediar de luce viros: victoria quam nos
molimur gladiis aut nulla sit aut sit honesta.
malo poeniteat Fortunae et sortis iniquae
regem, quam pudeat parti de nocte triumphi.
vincere non tanti est, ut me vicisse dolose
posteritas legat et minuat versutia famam.

Alexander’s primary concern is that the glory of his victory

not be tarnished by the manner in which he gains it. A night
attack will dull the brightness of his reputation (candorem
famae...obscurare). And he worries that his Homer will be
compelled to write of a victory that will diminish his glory
(minuat versutia famam). The reasoning is the same as that
which led Alexander to reject Darius’ proposal earlier in this
book (4.131-141).
The structure of this entire episode bears a strong re-
semblance to that in Book One at the tomb of Achilles (1.468-
538). There too Alexander’s indecision was tied closely to his
concern for glory; here, as there, that lack of confidence is
dissipated by a supernatural agent; for Walter introduces the
epic convention of the divine messenger sent to the hero.
Victory, seeing Alexander burdened with cares, sends Sleep to
give him rest. Her charge to Somnus is preceded by another
ekpbrasis, the description of the temple of Victoria (4.401-432).
The sleep sent by Victory renews Alexander’s confidence, and
his men notice the change in him (4.522-525);:

non magis a primo duri discrimine Martis

hunc alacrem videre sui: veniente suorum
in medium Magno, spes sana resuscitat aegrum
agmen, et in vultu Victoria visa sedere est.

The change from Curtius’ wording is effective. Now the refer-

ence to Victory is stated in a way that reminds us that she is
the source of Alexandet’s renewed confidence. Fortuna played
no part in the event; indeed, the ekphrasis, though it catalogues

— 109—
the many powers which accompany Victory, makes no mention
of her. However, Alexander sees Fortuna alone as the force
operating in his life (4.546-562): %

tunc vero fluentes

praecedens acies, verbo nutuque loquaci
ad lites animans: «vestris labor ultimus,» inquit,
«prae manibus, socii. bellum quod Granicus amnis
vidit et angusto Cilicum victoria saltu,
quid laudis, quid honoris habent, nisi fine beato
terminet extremum deus et Fortuna triumphum?
ced Fortuna deus ea, quae pro viribus adstans
semper Alexandro, tam sub me sceptra tenere
quam sub se gaudet alios regnare potentes.
haec ubi me Macetum moderantem Graecia vidit
frena, meos ex tunc promovit, eisque nocere
velle licet liceat, sed non audere licebit.
ista nihil praeter numerum discriminis affert
tam populosa cohors sed ad hoc Fortuna laborat,
quam pudet exiguos toties numerare triumphos,
ut mihi vincendum semel et simul offerat orbem.

In this address, which parallels in many respects the exhorta-

tion to his troops in Book One, Alexander declares that for
him Fortuna is a goddess (Fortuna deus est). Perhaps more
important—and certainly more incorrect—is his assertion that
she «always» favors him (quae...adstans / semper Alexandro).
Both these strong statements concerning Alexander’s faith in
Fortuna are Walter’s invention; they are not to be found in
Curtius’ version of this address (4.14.1-7). But they are an
integral part of the design of the Alexandreis. Alexander
trusts only in Fortuna; and his trust is based on an assumption
of permanence which, as Fortuna herself has stated, is against
her nature.
Having reaffirmed his belief in the power of Fortuna,
Alexander now reaffirms gloria as his motive for action (4.576-
583):

— 110—
 tantum mihi vincite, praedam
dividite inter vos. qui mecum vincere curas,
participem me laudis habe, tibi cetera tolle.
exemplar virtutis habe formamque gerendi
Martis Alexandrum: nisi primus in agmine primo
rex apparuerit, si tergum verterit hosti,
excusatus eris, veniamque merebitur ille
qui fugiet, qui lentus aget.

~The men will gather booty for themselves. Alexander is a

participant only in the quest for glory (participem me laudis
habe, tibi cetera tolle). These, then, are the two dominant
characteristics—confidence in Fortuna and a desire for glory—
that mark the man who declares himself as an exemplar virtutis.
For a Christian audience, he seems hardly an appropriate model,
and even though to a large degree he meets the definition of
virtus expounded by Aristotle, his misplaced trust in a stead-
fast Fortuna undercuts even that degree of heroism, since
Walter elsewhere has pointed out, in a passage containing
allusions to the wheel, that Alexander’s success itself holds the
seeds of his downfall. Walter’s additions to this scene, in
addition to demonstrating his knowledge of the canons of epic
imitation, have all served his larger purpose of showing that
Alexander is not, as he thinks, an exemplar virtutis. He can
better be described with the words which Boethius uses with
regard to the man who tries to stay the force of Fortuna’s ever
turning wheel (2. pr. 1: at omnium mortalium stolidissime, si
manere incipit, fors esse desistit).
Book Five represents the zenith of Alexandet’s career.
Exhibiting extraordinary valor, he leads his army to victory at
Arbela. While Darius withdraws into Media, his eventual
defeat a certainty, Alexander captures Syria and, at the end
of the book, enters Babylon in triumph. It would seem that
he well deserves the extravagant praise with which Walter
concludes the first half of his epic.
As I noted at the beginning of this chapter, the centerpiece
of Walter’s description of the battle is the aristeia of Alexander,
whose confidence in Fortuna seems at this point quite reason-

— 111—
able. When the fighting begins, the Persians mass their attack
against him, but his virtus and the help of Fortuna keep him
safe (5.25: quem duce Fortuna virtus infracta ‘tuetur). The
giant Geon is no more successful. He would kill Alexander,
si sineret Fortuna (5.39), but of course she will allow no such
thing. Fortuna does act more in accord with her nature in
the case of the Greek Nicanor. His exploits, which I mention-
ed in passing earlier, at first divert our attention from Alexan-
der, but I think are intended also to remind us that his luck
too eventually must turn. Fortuna smiles on his first efforts
(5.129-131):

primis arrisit subdola gestis

eius et excepit blande Fortuna furentem
Parmenione satum.

However, the description of Fortuna as subdola and the em-

phasis that she favored Nicanor’s first deeds lead us rightly to
expect an unhappy conclusion. Moreover, there is an ominous
undertone even to Walter’s depiction of Nicanor at the height
of his success (5.145-147):

mixta plebe duces pereunt utrimque, sed inter

milia tot procerum speciali laude refulgens
inclitus emicuit numerosa caede Nicanor.

The reference to him as inclitus cannot but call to mind inclitus

ille Clitus (5.77), whose death in battle was the last event
before the appearance of Nicanor in the episode. Now Walter
prepares to describe the end of Nicanor’s brief moments of
glory (5.167-182):

sed quos Hyrcania gignit

conspicuos in Marte supervenit ala quiritum
excedens numerum, inclusumque Nicanora vallo
armisonae sepis facta statione coronant.
obruitur primo iaculis: strepit aerea cassis
glandibus et saxis, tantamque sibi lacer orbis
obstupet .innasci veterano robore silvam.

— 112—
 iamque pedes ulnaeque labant mixtoque cruore
membra lavat sudor: sed mens infractaque virtus
et princeps animus fracto sub pectore regnant,
totque lacessitus iaculis et cestibus ille
murus Alexandri, sed non sine nomine tandem,
occubuit, multamque sui cum strage ruinam
Persarum trahit unius damnosa ruina,
qualis Romulea cecidit cum turris in urbe
turbine fulmineo vicinas obruit aedes.

Note, however, that Nicanor’s death takes us back to Alexan-

der. He is the murus Alexandri; moreover, like Alexander
earlier in this same book, he is surrounded by a large force of
Persians. The allusions to Alexander do not stop here. Each
warrior is protected by his virtus infracta—with this difference,
that Alexander prevails duce Fortuna and Nicanor falls. There
is, then, a dark side to the similarity; we are reminded again
that Fortuna, even as she favors Alexander in a way he thinks
permanent, is a fickle goddess.
The digression finished, the narrative returns to Alexander.
Marts sends Bellona to dissuade him from his vain pursuit of
Darius (5.222-228):

labere cara soror, Macetumque, i, nuncia regi

vana spe raperis, Darium qui perdere per te
nescius affectas: scelus hoc a principe tanto
amovere dei, nec fas ut dextera mundi
sceptra tenens madeat iugulo polluta senili.
altera debetur Dario Fortuna, suorum
proditione cadet.

Darius is not to die by Alexander’s hand; and Alexander is

wrong to hope otherwise (vana spe raperis). Nonetheless,
Alexander rejects this divine message (5 241-243):

excutitur saltu Macedo profugamque sequutus

voce deam: «quocumque venis dea cardine, vanum
spernimus omen.»

— 113—
Alexander throws the word vanum back at the goddess, then
vows that he himself will kill Darius even if he must pursue
him into the underworld (5.252-255): ‘

sed neque si turris Darium septemplice muro

includat, licet ardenti circumfluus unda
sulphureis Acheron defendat moenia ripis,
eripiet Fortuna mihi!

Once again Alexander expresses himself in terms of Fortuna.

Even she will not snatch Darius away from him (eripiet For-
tuna mihi). Ironically, this passage foreshadows Alexander’s
death more than that of Darius. For the moment, however,
it is enough to point out that Alexander’s words reveal him to
be wrong about Fortuna in this specific instance and in general
ignarus futuri. Darius will not die by his hand.
And what of Darius? Defeated again, he can only ponder
and derive some small measure of hope from the variability of
Fortuna (5.386-421). While Walter otherwise follows Curtius
(5.1.3-9) closely in his account of Darius’ flight from Arbela, his
musings concerning Fortuna are the poet’s invention. Walter
has Darius begin with a general statement on the inconstancy
of human affairs (5.386-390):

fortuitos toties, inquit, variare tumultus,

nunc adversa pati, nunc exultare secundis,
nunc caput incurvare malis, nunc tollere, sortis
humanae est: humilem sic vidit Lydia Croesum,
et sic victorem versa vice femina vicit.

Note that Darius includes another reference to the exemplum

of Cyrus and Croesus. From the impermanence of success
which they typify even the defeated can take heart (5.394-397):

nulla rei novitas pervertere fortia debet

pectora, cum nulla teneatur lege fidelis
esse homini Fortuna diu: spes unica victis
contra victorem rursus sperare triumphum.

contd cee
Darius is encouraged by the assumption that Fortuna remains
favorable to no man for a long time. Specifically, he is confi-
dent that the conquering Macedonians will be corrupted by
the wealth of the cities which they capture (5.398-403):

nec dubito, quin victor agros aditurus et urbes

civibus exhaustas, sed opimis rebus et auro
confertas, ubi gens avidissima gutture toto,
visceribus siccis sitiens letale metallum,
tentabit sedare sitim praedaque recenti
conceptam satiare famem.

The language of this last statement contains a striking, and

significant, image. We first encountered the image of «thirst»
applied to the young Alexander’s desire to take up arms against
Darius (1.30: arma puer sitiens). Now it is used to emphasize
the corrupting power of the riches which Alexander has won
by those arms (sitiens letale metallum / tentare sedare sitim);
for as Darius makes clear, he is speaking not only of the gens
Macedum but also of its leader (5.411: maior erat Macedo:
spoliis vincetur onustus). The defeated king concludes, without
convincing his men, that the Persians will profit by following
the practice of their ancestors who, when in dire straits, would
withdraw to «repair their Fortuna» (5.420: Fortunam repa-
rasse suam).
Alexander’s triumphant entry into Babylon, then, follows
close upon Darius’ prediction of the debilitating influence of
wealth upon him. In this context, Walter’s lavish description
of the splendor of that city takes on an ironic undertone. That
context, and what follows immediately in Book Six suggest as
well that the laudatio at the end of Book Five (5.491-520) is
not what it seems to be. Walter begins by repeating his claim
at the beginning of the epic that Alexander’s achievements
beggar those of the greatest Romans. They are beyond the
talent of Claudian or even Lucan to express. Thus he con-
cludes (5.510-520):

— 115—
 si gemitu commota pio votisque suorum
flebilibus divina daret clementia talem
Francorum regem, toto radiaret in drbe
haud mora vera fides, et nostris fracta:sub armis
Parthia baptismo renovari posceret ultro,
quaeque diu iacuit effusis moenibus alta
ad nomen Christi Carthago resurgeret, et quas
sub Carolo meruit Hispania solvere poenas
exigerent vexilla crucis: gens omnis et omnis
lingua Iesum caneret, et non invita subiret
sacrum sub sacro Remorum praesule fontem.

If France had such a king, the whole world would now be

Christian. But if we wish to take this intriguing passage lit-
erally and believe that Walter really means to extol Alexander,
we are left with the awkwardness of his doing so at the
moment of Alexander’s entrance into the city whose /uxuria
is going to corrupt him. On the other hand, the ironic intent
of this praise, suggested by its placement in the narrative, is
not difficult to discern; for in this passage Walter is employing
a common rhetorical technique of satire, that is, a succession
of serious ‘statements undercut by an absurd conclusion (23).
So Juvenal’s list of the horrors of life at Rome begins with
fires and collapsing houses and ends with poets reciting in the
month of August (Satura 3.6-9). Here the series proceeds from
the baptism of Parthia, the resurgence of Carthage, and the
return of Spain to the Christian faith—to the ludicrous picture
of Walter’s presumably astonished patron trying to cope with
the arrival of the whole world for baptism at Reims! The
tone of this particular passage is consistent with that of the
entire narrative. Walter’s praise of Alexander is always
blunted, most often by the use of allusions to the Consolation,
but here by the employment of a technique of another Latin

(23) On Walter as a satirist, the best discussion is by Charles

Witke, Latin Satire: The Structure of Persuasion (Leiden, 1970),
pp. 233-266. ;

— 116—
genre of which Walter was a consummate master. In sum,
like Lucan addressing Nero, he is speaking per ironiam.
The second half of the Alexandreis begins with emphasis
on Alexander’s decline from virtus (arg. 6.1-2: sextus Alexan-
drum luxu Babylonis et auro / corruptum ostendit). The first
lines of the book, to be sure, seem a continuation of the
laudatio from Book Five; but a contrary-to-fact clause within
the body of the passage suggests that Alexander, having reached
his zenith, is about to begin a descent (6.8-15).

rex erit ille tuus, a quo se posceret omnis

rege regi tellus, si perdurasset in illa
indole virtutum, qua coeperat ire potestas.
adspice quam blandis victos moderetur habenis,
adspice quam clemens inter tot prospera victor,
adspice quam mitis dictet ius gentibus, ut quos
hostes in bellis habuit cognoscat in urbe
cives, in bello quos vicit vincat amore.

But the prediction of Alexander’s decline from virtus (si per-

durasset in illa / indole virtutum) is followed by a strong
three-part statement of his current excellence as a ruler. The
list indicates that he has accepted Aristotle’s exhortation to
clementia (adspice quam clemens). I would add that the whole
passage is reminiscent of an earlier interjection (3.234-249) in
which praise for Alexandet’s clementia is followed immediate-
ly by a lament that he would prove incapable of sustaining
this high level of conduct. Walter connects the two passages
by repeating the use of a contrary-to-fact clause (cf. 3.242-243:
si perdurasset in illo / ille tenor) and by suggesting that Juxuria
(3.247: genetrix opulentia luxus) is the seed of his destruction.
Such emphasis implies that Walter intends to follow Curtius
in examining the deleterious effects of constant good luck on
the character of his hero.
' Let us return to the analysis of Book Six. Aristotle’s
advice had included a warning against the corrupting power of
luxuria, drunkenness, and sexual attraction (1.164-174); and it
is precisely the combination of these three vices which, Walter

— 117—
 informs us, begins the destruction of Alexander’s inborn ex-
cellence and the effects of his education (6.16-23):
*

hos tamen a tenero schola quos impresserat aevo

ornatus animi, poliendae schemata vitae,
innatae virtutis opus solitumque rigorem
fregerunt Babylonis opes luxusque vacantis
desidiae populi: quia nil corruptius urbis
moribus illius, nihil est instructius illis
ad Veneris venale malum, cum pectora multo
incaluere mero.

Not that the decay is immediately visible: to the contrary,

Alexander treats the defeated Madates with clementia and
pietas (6.135-141). With regard to Fortuna, on the other hand,
we can observe a change in Alexander’s condition. Walter
reintroduces the theme of Fortuna while praising Alexander’s
actions toward Madates (6.142-144):

Si vaga victori Dario Fortuna dedisset

urbem prae manibus, non impetrasset ab illo
plura parens, quam quae victis dedit hostibus hostis.

This reference to inconstant Fortuna (vaga...Fortuna) is not

found in Curtius (5.3.5-15), whom this episode otherwise
follows. In like manner Walter inserts a reference to Fortuna
at the beginnig of his account of the siege of Persepolis (6.150-
152):

non alias Macedo graviosa pericula passus

experto didicit semper variamque sibique
dissimilem et nulli Fortunam stare perennem.

Curtius merely says that Alexander’s luck came to a standstill

(5.3.22: tunc haesitabat deprehensa felicitas). The significance
of Walter’s change lies in the way the language serves to
contradict Alexander’s assertion at the end of Book Four
(4.553-555) that Fortuna always favors him. Walter’s word
order stresses that change is Fortuna’s only constancy (semper

— 118—
variamque); and he states plainly (nulli Fortunam stare peren-
nem) in language evoking Alexander’s own words (4.554-555:
adstans / semper Alexandro) that the Macedonian was wrong:
Fortuna stands permanently by no man.
Although in the rest of Book Six Walter focuses on other
characters, he continues to explore the theme of Fortuna.
Following Curtius (5.5.8-21), he includes the debate of the
mutilated Greek prisoners at Persepolis as to whether they
should now return home or stay in Asia (6.196-296). Walter
expands his model, giving more emphasis to Fortuna in the
speeches of Euctemon and Theseus (Theaetetus in Curtius).
One change in the language of Euctemon’s argument deserves
special note. In Curtius’ version, he simply says that it is no
marvel if «the fortunate always seek those like themselves»
(5.5.12: quid mirum et fortunatos semper parem quaerere).
Walter transforms this into «a lucky roll [of the dice] is ac-
customed to seek its like» (6.244: fortunata parem solet alea
quaerere casum), thus picking up the gambling image of
Aristotle’s speech which will play an increasingly important
role in the epic. To Theseus’ speech Walter adds the assertion
that «no pious man cares about the mockeries of cruel luck»
(6.255-256): durae ludibria sortis / nemo pius pensat). The
following also is Walter’s invention (6.281-282):

exsulibus tandem Fortunaeque ultima passis

est aliquid patrio se reddere posse sepulcro.

It is something at least for those who have suffered the worst

of Fortuna to return to the tombs of their fathers. With these
additions and changes Walter gives greater emphasis to the
contrast between the wretches who have experienced the cruel-
est blows of Fortuna and the man who has long been her
favorite.
Breaking with his source, which now describes the de-
struction of Persepolis, Walter instead shifts the narrative to
another man who knows first hand the mutability of Fortuna.
Darius, having decided that he prefers death in battle to

— 119—
 prolonging a life of defeat, once again addresses his men (6.312-
369). Not only this speech but also the rest of Book Six—
the plot of Bessus and Nabarzanes to betray Darius, and the
loyalty of his Greek mercenary Patron—follow Curtius closely.
Walter makes only two changes worth noting. The first is
minor, an expansion of Curtius’ expression of the glory which
Patron would have gained had Darius taken his advice (5.11.9:
Patron quidem egregiam conservati regis gloriam tulerat). In
the Alexandreis this becomes (6.506-510):

inclita Patronem servandi gloria regis

fecerat insignem: si quis tamen haec quoque, si quis
carmina nostra legat, numquam Patrona tacebit
Gallica posteritas: vivet cum vate superstes
gloria Patronis nullum moritura per aevum.

For Walter, this topos has its origin in the Bellum Civile
(9.980-986), where Lucan speaks of the task of the poet (980:
© sacer et magnus vatum labor) and foretells the immortality
of his subject (985-986: Pharsalia nostra / vivet et a nullo
tenebris damnabimur aevo). The claim by Walter that his
poetry can impart a «permanent» glory (gloria...nullum moritu-
ta per aevum) to the subjects about whom he writes will
appear three times in the Alexandreis. Other than making a
® passing comment on the impossibility (in Boethian terms) of
the claim, I must defer for now a discussion of the relation
of this passage to the whole theme of glory in the epic.
The second change is of major importance. It occurs as
part of Walter’s imitation of the statement on the role of
chance in human affairs which Curtius interjects into his ac-
count of Darius’ death. Curtius’ argument deserves to be
quoted (5.11.10):

eludant fidem licet quibus forte temere humana

negotia agique persuasum est nexuve causarum la-
tentium et multo ante destinatarum suum quemque
ordinem.immutabili lege percurrere.

— 120—
Those who ascribe historical events to no force beyond mere
chance (forte temere humana negotia volvi agique), he says, will
scoff at the assumption that there exists a combination of hid-
den causes which rules our lives by an immutable law. Curtius
then comments that whatever view one holds Darius «at any
rate» (certe) sealed his doom by deciding to remain among his
own men (5.11.11: quidquid fors tulisset, inter suos perpeti
malle quam transfugam fieri). The corresponding argument
in the Alexandreis concerning the governance of human affairs
has a different tone (6.511-515):

iam reor aeterno causarum saecula nexu

non temere volvi: nemo temeraria credat
fortuitoque geri mundana negotia casu:
omnia lege meant, quam rerum conditor ille
sanxit ab aeterno.

Walter to be sure makes obvious verbal allusions to the Curtius

passage. I can cite temere volvi, causarum...nexu, and mun-
dana (for humana) negotia as examples. But Walter’s depar-
tures from his model are equally obvious. First, in contrast to
Curtius’ equivocal stance, Walter states his firm belief that
events do not occur haphazardly (iam reor...nemo...credat).
Second, he introduces a reference to the Christian God (rerum
conditor ille) as the originator of the eternal lex by which
events are ordered. Finally, he rewords the passage to work
in pertinent references to the following section of the Comso-
lation (1. pr. 6):

tum illa: «huncine,» inquit, «mundum temerariis agi

fortuitisque casibus putas, an ullum credis ei regi-
men inesse rationis?» «atqui,» inquam, «nullo existi-
maverim modo ut fortuita temeritate tam certa mo-
veantur, verum operi suo conditorem praesidere
deum scio nec umquam fuerit dies qui me ab hac
sententiae veritate depellat.

The first sentence, uttered by Philosophy, provides the phrase

— 121—
 fortuitis casibus which is reflected in Walter’s fortuitoque...
casu. Moreover, Walter’s use of temeraria (in addition to te-
mere, taken from Curtius, in the same line) is an allusion to
Boethius’ temerariis...casibus. Perhaps Walter’s nemo credat
also is a reminiscence of an...credis in the Consolation. Finally.
we see in the Boethian passage a likely model for Walter’s
reference to God (conditorem praesidere deum). At any rate,
the Boethian echoes are consistent with the affirmative, Chris-
tian tenor of the argument. What is in Curtius’ narrative a
brief parenthetical comment is made by Walter an integral part
of his deeper theme. For Walter is here developing a Christian
context in which one can recognize the illusory nature of the
power of Fortuna, who can affect only those who cannot
perceive the true order behind her apparent workings. That
is, of course, a perception unavailable to the non-Christian
Alexander.
In Book’ Seven, Walter continues what I can now with
confidence label his method of adapting his historical sources.
His additions and alterations are primarily if not exclusively in
the service of his treatment of Fortuna, glory, and their place
in the inadequate «heroic» attitude of Alexander. In this book
Walter’s main departures from Curtius are the invention of a
long soliloquy by Darius and an apostrophe concerning greed,
which Walter inserts after the death of the Persian king.
Where Curtius’ narrative breaks off, Walter follows the ac-
count given by Justin; but here again Walter adds to what
he found, in this case a speech by Alexander and a description
of Darius’ tomb.
Walter alters Curtius’ narrative in order to have Darius
again meditate upon the vicissitudes of his life (7.17-58). The
point of his speech is that he has not deserved his present mis-
fortune (7.17-20):
et tamen haec secum: «quos me, pater optime
[divum,
distrahis in casus? quo me parat alea fati
perdere delicto? superi, quo crimine tantas
promerui poenas?»

— 122—
We last encountered the image of the dice in the speech of the
mutilated prisoner Euctemon (6.244); and its appearance here
recalls Darius’ earlier musings concerning the fickleness of
Fortuna. The complaint itself echoes that of Boethius in the
Consolation regarding the punishments which afflict good men
(4. pr. 5). In contrast to Curtius, who portrays Darius as
unwilling to commit suicide (5.12.11), Walter has Darius
attempt to kill himself after he convinces himself that his death
soon is inevitable anyway (7.51-58). Foiled, he is bound and
fettered. Curtius at this point makes a comment about For-
tuna’s devising mockeries for the king (5.12-20: nova ludibria
subinde excogitante Fortuna). But Walter takes the oppor-
tunity to repeat his use of the dice as an image of Fortuna
(7.74-79):

proh quanta licentia fati,

quam vaga, quae versat humanos alea casus!
quem prius aurato curru videre sedentem
et tremuere sui, iam non suus, ille suorum
vincitur manibus et in arta sede locatur,
captivumque trahit currus angustia regem.

Darius has been reduced to captivity among his own men by

his defeat in war—elsewhere described as the dice game of
Mars; hence his woes can be attributed to the unpredictable
dice (quam vaga...alea), Alexander, of course, sees Fortuna at
work here as always. When he learns what has been done to
the king, he declares that Darius now has reached the «end of
his Fortuna and his woes» (7.110: Fortunae finem metamque
malorum).
Walter differs from Curtius also in details of his account
of Darius’ death. The king refuses to flee from the advancing
Macedonian army even though his traitorous captors threaten
him (7.185-194):
ille venenosos monitus et dicta repellit,
ultoresque deos testatur adesse, fidemque
acris Alexandri lacrimis implorat obortis,
seque negat scelerum comitari velle clientes.

— 123—
 «nullus» ait «mortis metus aut violentia fati
compellet Darium scelerum se iungere castris.
non habet ulterius, quod nostris cladibus addat
Fortunae gladius, mors, quam parricida minatur,
antidotum moeroris erit mortisque venenum
pro medicamentis curaque laboris habebo.»

Walter has invented the two references to poison (ille venenosos

monitus et dicta repellit... mortisque venenum) and the phrase
Fortunae gladius. The «sword of Fortuna» is an understand-
able image for a man who sees the influence of that divinity
behind his defeats; but the «poison of death» is an odd phrase
to utter just before one is stabbed. But this double mention
of poison makes Darius’ death foreshadow that of Alexander,
who is to be killed by real poison. The connection between
the deaths of the two rivals is strengthened in the following
scene (expanded from Justin 11.15), in which Darius addresses
his last words, through Polystratus, to Alexander. Darius says
that the opportunity to relay a message to Alexander is the
one consolation of his approaching death (7.255-259):
Fortunae praesentis, ait, mortisque propinquae
hoc unum Dario et solum solamen habetur,
quod tecum mihi non opus est interprete lingua,
quod loquor extremum discretis auribus, et quod
non erit extremas incassum promere voces.

He praises Alexander, especially for his treatment of his wife

and children, then asks that he punish Bessus, since Fortuna
prevents Darius from doing so (7.278-286):
his precor a iusto reddatur principe talis
talio pro meritis, qualem parricida meretur,
quamque repensurus, mihi si Fortuna triumphum
concessisset eram: neque enim hoc discrimine solum
alea versatur mea, sed communis eorum
qui praesunt turbae et populi moderantur habenas.
in me causa agitur. decernat pondere iusto
Magnus, quae tantum maneat vindicta reatum,
quae nova. flagitii scelus expiet ultio tanti.

—
Fortuna has not granted victory to Darius. His dice are played
(alea versatur mea); but this image occurs in a sentence which
emphasizes that Darius’ fate is linked to Alexander’s (neque
enim hoc discrimine solum...sed communis). While the sub-
stance of this message—the expression of gratitude, the request
for vengeance—is taken from Justin, the references to Fortuna
and the gambling image are again Walter’s addition. More-
over, Walter links this speech, in which Darius ends with a
prayer that the whole world be subject to Alexander (7.296:
totus Alexandro famuletur subditus orbis), to that in which
the High Priest of Jerusalem promises Alexander that same
achievement (1.533: omnemque tibi pessumdabo terram). The
language describing the sudden disappearance of the latter
(1.535: superasque recessit in auras) is echoed in the departure
of Darius’ soul from his body (7.305: tenues evasit liber in
auras).
Throughout the Alexandreis, Walter weaves together nar-
trative and personal comment to create an epic operating on two
levels. Before reporting Alexander’s response to the words
of Darius, Walter inserts a long apostrophe (7.305-347). He
begins by attacking the same three vices about which Aristotle
had warned the young Alexander—greed (7.310-311: funestus
habendi / amor), lust (7.311: carnis amica libido) and drunken-
ness (7.313-314: obscoenus...venter / ...Bacchus). Then after
several allusions to contemporary events Walter turns to the
real subject of his outburst (7.332-337):

sed quia labilium seducta cupidine rerum,

dum sequitur profugi bona momentanea mundi,
allicit illecebris animam caro, non sinit esse
principii memorem, vel cuius imaginis instar
facta sit aut quorsum resoluta carne reverti
debeat: inde boni subit ignorantia veri.

In this passage Walter continues to refine the underlying theme

of the epic. He is attacking the ignorance of the true good
(boni...ignorantia veri) which results from the quest for the
transitory pleasures of this world (labilium rerum...profugi

— 125—
bona momentanea mundi). The message of course is the same
as that of the Consolation, and reaffirms the significance of the
recurring allusions to that work. Nor does it seem unimportant
that Walter has placed this clear statement of his intent at
such a critical point in the narrative, with Alexander’s great
foe dead and «success» assured. We have here an example
of the same technique which Walter employed in Book Five.
At an apparent moment of triumph, he undercuts the quality
of the victory. In Book Five, Walter points to Alexander’s
imminent decline from virtus; in Book Seven, he stresses the
emptiness of the glory that Alexander holds to be the lone
consolation of his mortality.
Alexander’s speech concerning his dead foe is immediately
preceded by the second of three instances in which Walter
claims that his poetry will bring undying fame (7.344-347):

te tamen, o Dari, si quae modo scribimus olim

sunt habitura fidem, Pompeio Francia iuste
laudibus aequabit: vivet cum vate superstes
gloria defuncti nullum moritura per aevum.

The irony of this passage lies in part in the equation of Darius

with Pompey; for Walter thus implies that Alexander is to
be equated with Caesar; and, as I have said, the Caesar of the
Bellum Civile is no exemplar virtutis. Moreover, there is in
Walter’s formula a measure of self-irony, since he has so skill-
fully employed reminiscences of the Consolation to belittle the
transient glory that secular literature can bestow.
And yet glory, vanitas that it is, is the one consolation
which Alexander finds when he ponders the death of Darius
(7.354-361):

ergo ubi purpureo lacrimam siccavit amictu,

purgavitque genas: «miseris mortalibus,» inquit,
«hoc solum relevamen inest, quod gloria mortem
nescit, et Ooccasum non sentit fama superstes.
si vitae meritis respondet gloria famae,
nulla tuos-actus poterit delere vetustas,

— 126—
 nec te posteritas, rex Persidis, inclite Dari,
oblinet, aut veterum corrodet serra dierum.

The connection between Darius and Alexander continues.

Alexander’s opening words (misetis mortalibus...hoc solum
relevamen inest) are the counterpart of those of Darius as re-
ported by Polystratus (7.256: hoc unum Dario et solum sola-
men habetur). When Alexander ponders death, he is heartened
only by thoughts of glory. In his view, glory does not die
(gloria mortem / nescit), nor does fame perish (occasum non
sentit fama).
The last major episode of Book Seven is the tale of the
«returning home rumor» which Walter found in Curtius
(6.2.15-3.18). In this instance he follows his model closely,
since it already contains references to Fortuna and glory which
are consistent with: his development of those themes. Consider,
for example, Curtius’ version of Alexander’s response to the
news that his men are eager to break off the campaign (6.2.18):

haud secus quam par erat territus, qui Indos atque

ultima Orientis peragrare statuisset, praefectos co-
piarum in praetorium contrahit, obortisque lacrimis,
ex medio gloriae spatio revocari se, victi magis quam
victoris Fortunam in patriam relaturum, conquestus
est; nec sibi ignaviam militum obstare, sed deum
invidiam, qui fortissimis viris subitum patriae desi-
derium admovissent, paulo post in eandem cum
maiore laude famaque redituris.

He complains that he is being thwarted at the mid-point of

his glory (ex medio gloriae spatio) and will have to return
bearing the Fortuna of one conquered rather than of a victor
(victi magis quam victoris Fortunam in patriam relaturum).
In the Alexandreis this complaint is given as follows (7.452-
- 463):

lacrimisque profusis
limite de medio terrarum a civibus orbem

— 127—
 auferri sibi conqueritur: virtutis in ipso
limine Alexandro mundi totius apertum
praecludi imperium: nihil in patriam»nisi probra,
Fortunam victi, se non victoris ad Argos
esse relaturum: tantis obsistere coeptis
invidiam superum, qui fortia pectora semper
illiciunt patriaeque trahunt natalis amore:
indecoresque viros sine nomine velle redire
ad patrios ortus, indulto tempore magna
laude reversuros.

Walter repeats the key statement concerning Fortuna almost

verbatim (Fortunam victi, se non victoris ad Argos / esse re-
laturum). He keeps the reference to fame and adds the com-
plaint that the soldiers are willing to return home sine nomine.
Interestingly, Walter’s version of «the mid-point of glory» is
«the threshold of virtus» (virtutis in ipso / limine); but glory
is the consequence of virtus attained. Similarly, though his
version is much shorter, Walter retains the main thrust of
Alexander’s speech to the soldiers as given by Curtius (6.3.
1-18). However, where Curtius includes a reference to the
insecurity of Alexander’s conquests (6.3.5: si crederem satis
certam esse possessionem terrarum), Walter adds a comment
concerning chance (7.480-481: lubrica sors dederit: ergo si
certa maneret / terrarum...). Walter likewise follows Curtius
in having Alexander end with a successful appeal to the men’s
desire for glory (7.526-529). For them too it is a powerful
force.
The narrative of Book Eight is dominated by two main
episodes—the trial and execution of Philotas (8.75-334) and
the conquest of the Scythians (8.358-513). The latter episode,
as found in Curtius, fits the design of the Alexandreis; the
former is adapted by Walter to meet his needs.
A hint of Walter’s purpose with regard to the Philotas
episode is manifest in the change which he makes in Alexan-
der’s speech revealing the existence of a plot against him.
Curtius has Alexander begin thus (6.8.26):

— 128—
 paene, inquit, milites, hominum scelere vobis ereptus
sum; deum providentia et misericordia vivo.

Now the Alexandreis (8.98-99):

paene, inquit, ademptus
vobis, 0 cives, Fortunae munere vivo.

Earlier Walter had retained Curtius’ reference to the «envy of

the gods» (deum invidiam) when Alexander spoke (7.459)
of the forces trying to stop him. Now Walter makes a change
to reflect the continuing theme that Alexander sees Fortuna
(Fortunae munere vivo) as a power constantly working on his
behalf.
Fortuna figures prominently also in the apologia of Philotas.
In Curtius’ version he makes references to her at the beginning
of his defense (6.10.2: inter optimam conscientiam et iniquis-
simam Fortunam destitutus) and near its conclusion (6.10.33):

ego in ipso robore aetatis eripior, tibi carnifex spi-

ritum adimet, quem, si Fortuna expectare voluisset,
natura poscebat.

Walter retains the latter passage at the conclusion of his version

(8.298-301):
effeto sanguine patri
spiritus eripitur, quem si Fortuna morari
vel modicum sineret in obeso corpore, iure
poscebat natura suo.

He increases the importance of the reference, however, by

making these the last words uttered by Philotas before Alexan-
der suddenly appears, and Philotas faints from fright. Like-
wise, Walter adds much more emphasis to Fortuna in the
earlier portion of Philotas’ apologia. Consider his opening
~ statement (8.193-204):
«insonti facile est» inquit «reperire
verba: tenere modum misero non est leve, cives.

— 129—
 cumque sit in portu mens hinc mea, criminis expers
huius et in nullo sibi conscia, turbidus illinc
me tumido fluctu Fortunae verberet Auster,
inter utrumque situs, utriusque locatus in arto,
non video, qua lege quam parere vel huius
temporis articulo vel mundae a crimine menti.
forti Fortunae pereo, si pareo: mentem
non sinit insontem Fortuna potentior esse:
haec secura manet, in me parat illa securim:
hinc spes, inde metus: hinc salvus, naufragus illinc.

Philotas names Fortuna three times. The wind of Fortuna

overwhelms him in the swelling wave (me tumido fluctu For-
tunae verberet Auster). To obey Fortuna is to perish, for she
does not allow him to have a guiltless mind. Indeed, Fortuna
is preparing the ax against Philotas (in me parat illa securim).
Moreover, all these references to Fortuna are bounded by
images of shipwreck. Philotas begins by describing himself
as caught in a swelling wave; and he concludes by saying that
he is shipwrecked by Fortuna (naufragus illinc).
Walter himself leaves no doubt concerning the point of
the episode, While describing the conspiracy which led to
Philotas’ downfall, he inserts an allusion to a twelfth-century
scandal (8.168-171):

hoc habitu quondam Burchardum Flandria vidit,

solventem meritas occiso consule poenas,
quem rota poenalis tanto pro crimine torsit.

Rota poenalis is a marvelously ambiguous phrase. It can refer

literally to the instrument of torture for the unfortunate
Burchard; but it can also refer figuratively to the wheel of
Fortuna. The latter notion is picked up in a second apostrophe
with which Walter concludes this episode (8.323-334):

o quam difficili nisu sors provehit actus

lubrica mortales, et quos adscendere fecit
quam facile evertit! Magno Fortuna labore
fecerat excelsum media de gente Philotam:

— 130—
 princeps militiae factus ductorque cohortis
Parmenione satus, modico post tempore lapsus,
scandere dum quaerit, fato damnatus et exsul
obruitur saxis: certat simul omnis in unum
volvere saxa manus, cuius manus ante movendi
castra dabat signum. quam frivola gloria rerum,
quam mundi fugitivus honor, quam nomen inane!
praelatus, qui praeesse cupit, prodesse recusat.

Note the emphasis on Philotas’ rise and fall (adscendere..

.lap-
sus...scandere dum quaerit); and consider as well Walter’s
renewed stress on the association between Fortuna (sors...lu-
brica...Fortuna) and the vanity of worldly fame (quam frivola
gloria rerum...quam nomen inane!). The language of this
attack on glory, interestingly enough, echoes the earlier state-
ment by Alexander himself (2.484-486) in which he declares
that he is satisfied with glory (mihi gloria sufficit) and loves
fame (mihi nomen amo). Here, then, embodied in an episode
ostensibly about someone else is another commentary on the
emptiness of Alexander’s goals.
Walter now turns briefly to Bessus, but again makes a
significant change in Curtius’ account. First, he jumps abruptly
from the story of Bessus’ death to the conquest of the Scy-
thians, omitting the siege of Cyropolis. Seccond, he adds a
moralizing tag to the report of the demise of Darius’ killer
(8.355-357):

exitus hic Bessi: qui dum conscendere tentat

labitur, imperium dum quaerit et imperat, in se
regreditur, domini ponens insignia servus.

The language of this comment (conscendere...labitur...dum

quaerit) reflects that of the apostrophe concerning Philotas
(lapsus, scandere dum quaerit). This resemblance connects
Bessus’ fall, like that of Philotas, to the inexorable turning of
the wheel of Fortuna. And this image serves as a fitting in-
troduction to the long discourse by the Scythian ambassadors
about Fortuna.

— 131—
 Walter’s version of the visit of the Scythians to Alexander
occupies the rest of Book Eight (8.358-513). Curtius’ account
of this event could hardly be more suitable to Walter’s needs.
The long speech by the envoy warning Alexander against in-
vasion contains a striking portrait of Fortuna (7.8.24-25):

proinde Fortunam tuam pressis manibus tene; lu-

brica est nec invita teneri potest. salubre consilium
sequens quam praesens tempus ostendet melius. im-
pone felicitati tuae frenos; facilius illam reges. nostri
sine pedibus dicunt esse Fortunam, quae manus et
pinnas tantum habet; cum manus porrigit, pinnas
quoque comprehende.

Fortuna is slippery and cannot be held against her will. With-

out feet, she has only hands and wings—a difficult being indeed
to grasp. Her image stands as a warning to put curbs on one’s
success. That Walter imitates this passage (8.448-459) and
the whole speech is not surprising; but equally as revealing as
his imitation are the alterations which Walter makes in order
to blend this episode into the overall development of the For-
tuna theme in the Alexandreis. For example, Curtius’ brief
mention of Alexander’s ambition (7.8.13: sic quoque concupis-
cis quae non capis) becomes in the epic (8.377-379):

vel si quanta cupis tantum tibi corporis esset,

non tibi sufficeret capiendo maximus orbis,
sed tua mundanas mensura excederet oras.

Were Alexander’s body as great as his desires, the world itself

would not be large enough to contain him. This description
now both hints at the excessive ambition which will lead to
Alexander’s death and foreshadows the sententia about him at
the end of the poem. Of interest too is an addition by Walter
to the list of examples of «reversals» offered by the Scythian.
Walter follows Curtius in noting that the lion becomes the
food of birds, and rust consumes iron, but goes on to say
(8.400-403):

— 132—
 sub cardine Phoebi
tam firmum nihil est, cui non metus esse ruinae
possit ab invalido. quis non, dum navigat orbem,
debeat occursum mortisque timere procellam?

Again the storm as an image of Fortuna: the man who sails

the sea should fear the storm (dum navigat orbem, debeat...
timere procellam). The man absorbed in the quest for glory
and earthly success should expect reversals.
Of all Walter’s changes in this episode, none is more im-
portant than those which he makes in the description of
Fortuna (8.448-459):

proinde manu pressa digitisque tenere recurvis

Fortunam memor esto tuam, quae lubrica semper
et levis est, numquamque potest invita teneri.
consilium ergo salubre sequens quod temporis offert
gratia praesentis, dum prospera luditur a te
alea, dum celeris Fortunae munera nondum
accusas, impone modum felicibus armis,
ne rota forte tuos evertat versa labores.
nostri Fortunam pedibus dixere carentem,
pennatasque manus et habentem brachia pingunt,
ergo manus si forte tibi porrexerit, alas
corripe, ne rapidis, quando volet, avolet alis.

The beginning (8.448-450) and the end (8.454-459) of this

passage are borrowed from Curtius; but the middle portion
contains two striking innovations. The Scythian counsels
moderation to Alexander «as long as he is playing a winning
- game» (dum prospera luditur a te / alea), and to beware lest
«the wheel of Fortuna overturn his efforts» (ne rota forte tuos
evertat versa labores). The reference to the wheel of Fortuna
continues the series of allusions that begins with the Philotas
episode. But note that Walter also inserts a reference to
gambling. I have made mention previously of the importance
of recurring allusions to the alea Fortunae. It appears in
Aristotle’s definition of virtus; it appears in a key passage
linking the fates of Darius and Alexander; and it will appear

— 133—
again in the context of Alexander’s view of life after death.
The focus of Book Nine, like that of Eight, is on two major
episodes—Alexander’s conquest of the Indian king Porus
(1-325) and his own brush with death (326-580). In both
episodes Walter has inserted elements which help to develop
the theme of the inadequacy of Alexander’s heroic outlook.
The key to the Porus episode is Walter’s expansion of the
dying king’s message to Alexander. Curtius’ version is rather
spare (8.14.42-43):

«quoniam» inquit «percontaris, respondebo ea li-

bertate quam interrogando fecisti; neminem me
fortiorem esse censebam. meas enim noveram vires,
nondum expertus tuas; fortiorem esse te belli docuit
eventus. sed ne sic quidem parum felix sum, secun-
dus tibi.» rursus interrogatus quid ipse victorem
statuere debere censeret: «quod hic» inquit «dies
tibi suadet, quo expertus es quam caduca felicitas
esset.»

Porus has learned that Alexander is stronger than he; when

asked how he thought the victor ought to treat him, he replies
«as the day advises on which he learned how perishable suc-
cess is» (quam caduca felicitas esset). In the Alexandreis,
Porus’ speech is as follows (9.298-316):

at Porus: «quia quaeris,» ait «respondeo tanta

libertate tibi, quantam mihi, Magne, dedisti
quaerendo prius, ante malum certaminis huius
nemo erat in terris, quem posse resistere, quemve
censerem mihi Marte parem vel mente, meamque
vim noram et meritum, nondum tua fata tuasque
expertus vires: sed quam me fortior esses
eventus belli docuit: tibi vero secundus
non minimum felix videor mihi. ne tamen isto
attollas animum casu, quia viceris; ipse
exemplum tibi sum: qui cum fortissimus essem
fortius inveni. ne dixeris, esse beatum
qui quo crescat habet, nisi quo decrescere possit

at GON
 non habeat. satius est non adscendere, quam post
adscensum regredi; melius non crescere, quam post
augmentum minui. gravius torquentur avari
amissi memores, quam delectantur habendo.
proinde tui cursus frenum moderare. caduca
sunt bona Fortunae stabilisque ignara favoris.»

Walter’s changes, as usual, are concerned with increasing the

emphasis on Fortuna in the speech. Porus urges caution (ne
tamen isto / attollas animum casu). Do not, he says, call a
man blessed unless he is free of the danger of falling. Porus
labels himself an exemplum for Alexander, because although
strong, he found a stronger foe; and he warns that the gifts
of Fortuna are fickle and «ignorant of steadfast favor» (sta-
bilisque ignara favoris). As striking as the mention of Fortuna
by Porus is the mingling of the imagery of the moon, through
the notion of waxing and waning (crescat...decrescere...aug-
mentum minui), with that of the wheel, through the notion
of ascent and descent (adscendere...regredi), to emphasize her
changeable nature. Moreover, the statement in which Porus
declares himself an exemplum for Alexander foreshadows
Walter’s assertion at the end of the epic that Alexander is an
exemplum for the reader (24). And we will see that, in
Walter’s telling of the story, the warning from Porus will
prove accurate, even if there exists no mortal adversary who
is fortior Alexandro.
Mentions of Fortuna serve as a transition from this episode
to the next. Alexander marvels that the king’s spirit has not
been broken by the wheel of Fortuna (9.317-318: Fortunae
turbine regem / infractum). But he is also elated because
Fortuna has granted him so great a victory (9.329: prodiga
tam celebrem dederat Fortuna triumphum), which seems to

(24) On the use of the word exemplum see J.-Th. Welter,

L’Exemplum dans 1a littérature religieuse du Méyen Age (Paris and
Toulouse, 1927); also useful is Goswin Frenken, Die Exempla des
Jacob von Vitry: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Erzahlungsliteratur
des Mittelalters (Munich, 1914), pp. 5-18.

— 135—
open the whole world to conquest. First the tribe of the
Sudracae, who have barricaded themselves inside their city,
must be overcome. The Greeks attack; andiin the course of
the battle Alexander alone scales the wall. He leaps inside
and is seriously wounded by an arrow before the rest of the
army breaches the wall and rescues him. The role of luck in
this event had already been exploited by Curtius, who points
out that Fortuna saved Alexander’s life when he jumped into
the midst of the enemy (9.5.3):
sed forte ita libraverat corpus ut se pedibus exci-
peret; itaque stans init pugnam, et ne circumiri
posset Fortuna providerat: vetusta arbor haud pro-
cul muro ramos multa fronde vestitos, velut de
industria regem protegentes, obiecerat.

By landing on his feet Alexander is able to begin fighting at

once; moréover, Fortuna had provided a tree close to the wall
to prevent the king from being surrounded. Walter preserves
most of this passage, changing it only to ascribe to Fortuna as
well the fact that Alexander lands on his feet (9.374-382).
The victory won, Alexander is brought back to camp more
dead than alive. Walter subtly weaves Fortuna into his ac-
count of the recovery of the king. The Greeks for the second
time fear the death of their leader; however, the physician
Critobulus cures him. To describe the feeling of relief which
sweeps through the camp Walter uses an extended simile
(9.493-500):

qualis in Aegeo Borea bacchante profundo

exoritur clamor, cum fracta puppe magister
volvitur in medios everso vertice fluctus.
fit fragor et similem timet unusquisque ruinam,
seque omnes anima periisse fatentur in una:
si tamen incolumem revocare tenacibus uncis
et clavum reparare queant, sonat aura tumultu
laetitiae, et primum vincunt nova gaudia luctum.

The distress of the soldiers has been like that suffered by sailors

— 136—
when the helmsman has been swept overboard in a violent
storm. But if they are able to save him and pull him back on
the ship, then the air is filled with sounds of rejoicing, and
cheers replace laments. The image is both clever and ironic.
Alexander the helmsman is back to guide the ship. But the
army under him is still a ship at sea—that is, in the power of
Fortuna.
Walter also makes significant changes in two speeches
which occur in this episode. To Craterus’ complaint about
Alexander’s rashness Walter adds a suggestive reference to the
king’s ambition (9.514-517):
«tua, regum maxime, virtus»
inquit «et esuries mentis, cui maximus iste
non satis est orbis, quem proponunt sibi finem?
vel quem sunt habitura modum?»

Of interest here is the repetition of the themes of Alexander’s

hunger for glory (esuries mentis) and the insufficiency of even
the whole world for his ambition (non satis est orbis). The
latter idea figures prominently in Alexander’s reply to Craterus.
The greater part of this speech is taken from Curtius (9.6.
16-17); but as expected Walter gives greater emphasis to the
intertwined themes of glory and Fortuna (9.546-577):

«non minimum vobis obnoxius» inquit

«aut ingratus ero, non solum quod scio nostram
vos hodie, proceres, vestrae praeferre saluti,
sed quod ab introitu regni vel origine belli
erga me nullum pietatis opus vel amoris
pignus omisistis. verum non est mihi prorsus
mens ea quae vobis: neque enim desistere coeptis
aut bellum finire volo, non me capit aetas,
sed neque me spatio aetatis vel legibus huius
metior, excedit aevi mea gloria metas:
haec sola est, vestrum metiri qua volo regem.
degeneres animi pectusque ignobili summum
credunt esse bonum diuturna vivere vita.
sed mundi rex unus ego, qui mille triumphos,

— 137—
 non annos vitae numero, si munera recte
computo Fortunae, vel si bene clara retractem
gesta, diu vixi. Thracas Asiamque subégi;
proximus est mundi mihi finis, et absque deorum
ut loquar invidia, nimis est angustus et orbis,
et terrae tractus domino non sufficit uni.
quae tamen egressus postquam subiecero mundum,
en alium vobis aperire sequentibus orbem
iam mihi constitui, nihil insuperabile forti!
Antipodum penetrare sinus aliamque videre
Naturam accelero, mihi si tamen arma negatis,
non possunt mihi deesse manus. ubicumque movebo,
in theatro mundi totius me rear esse,
ignotosque locos vulgusque ignobile bellis
nobilitabo meis, et quas Natura removit
gentibus occultas calcabitis hoc duce terras.
his operam dare proposui, nec renuo claram,
si Fortuna ferat, et in his exstinguere vitam.»

Walter takes almost verbatim from Curtius the language in

which Alexander expresses his reliance on glory as the one
measure of his success (mea gloria...haec sola est, vestrum me-
tiri qua volo ‘regem). Alexander argues that by this standard,
and by the criterion of Fortuna’s favors (si munera recte /
computo Fortunae), he already has had a long life. But to
Curtius’ statement that Alexander wished to «open a new
realm of Nature, a new world» (9.6.20: aliam Naturam, alium
orbem aperire mihi statui), Walter adds the further ambition of
reaching the realm of the Antipodes. Alexander’s exclamation
that nothing is impossible for the bold (nihil insuperabile forti!)
is not in Curtius, and an allusion to it will occur in Book Ten.
Also Walter’s addition is the complaint of Alexander that the
earth is too small for the conquest of it to satisfy him (nimis
est angustus et orbis, / et terrae tractus domino non sufficit
uni). The king thus confirms Craterus’ suspicion. Finally,
while Curtius’ version ends with Alexander’s injunction that
Olympias be «consecrated to immortality» when she dies
(9.6.26: mihi maximus laborum atque operum erit fructus, si
Olympias mater immortalitati consecretur quandoque excesserit

— 138—
vita), Walter omits these words and instead focuses on the
king’s thoughts about his own death (his operam dare pro-
posui... / et in his exstinguere vitam). As always, Alexander
sees himself in the grip of Fortuna (si Fortuna ferat); but Book
Ten will reveal a different power as the cause of his death.
Because Walter draws together in Book Ten the various
elements which, when considered in relation to each other,
provide the meaning that unifies the surface narrative, it will
be useful now to examine the question of the structure of the
Alexandreis. In brief, Walter has designed each of the suc-
ceeding books to build on the central themes which he establi-
shes in Book One. In that book he presents the definition of
the virtus to be pursued by Alexander, but also introduces the
Boethian framework in which he will attack it as devoted to
a false goal (glory) which places the hero under the control of
Fortuna. In Book Two, Walter inserts the long speech by
Fortuna which is modelled on her apologia in the Consolation;
a second speech in that book, by Darius to his men, echoes
Alexander’s words to his army in Book One. Both generals
speak paradoxically of their confidence of success despite their
recognition of the inconstancy of the role of Fortuna in human
affairs. The description of the shield of Darius, with which
the book concludes, contains an important reference (2.533-534:
ptoh gloria fallax / imperii) to the vanity of the prize which
Alexander and Darius have both declared to be the goal of their
lives. In Book Three, the contrasting situations of the two
adversaries are used to explore the Boethian paradox that
«Fortuna is more profitable when adverse.» The subject of
Book Four is the battle of Arbela. In Book Four the major
episode concerns Alexander’s crisis of confidence, the resolution
of that crisis by supernatural means, and Alexander’s mis-
interpretation of the power which has helped him. In Book
Five we see Alexander at the zenith of his success, but Walter
threads into his account of the victory at Arbela ominous fore-
shadowings of the hero’s fall and eventual death by poison.
While the first half of the Alexandreis ends with Alexan-
der’s triumphant entry into Babylon, the second half begins

— 139—
with a statement of regret by Walter that the king would be
unable to withstand the opulentia of that city, Book Six
contains the debate among the prisoners at Persepolis in
i which
Walter has added greater emphasis to Curtius’ comment regar-
ding Fortuna as well as a strong personal statement, replete
with allusions to the Consolation, on the fact that the Christian
is aware that the power of Fortuna is illusory. The twin center-
pieces of Book Seven are Darius’ long soliloquy on Fortuna (in
which Walter first uses the image of the dice to connect Darius
and Alexander) and Walter’s extended apostrophe concerning
the ignorance of the true good which afflicts mankind. Finally,
Books Eight and Nine both contain two major episodes which
emphasize Fortuna: in Eight, the trial of Philotas and the
embassy of the Scythians; in Nine, the death of Porus (who
declares himself an exemplum for Alexander) and Alexander’s
near death. As I have shown, in all of these major episodes,
when Walter inserts new material or alters his models, the
result almost invariably is an increased emphasis concerning
Fortuna—whether it is her role in human events as Alexander
and the other characters interpret them or Walter’s attack on
the foolishness of that view. In sum, while the narrative focus
may shift from Alexander to other characters, Fortuna herself
constantly occupies center stage. The main characters of the
Alexandreis all act on the belief that her operations are
supreme. In this respect they differ little from the characters
of the Waltharius. And like Gerald, Walter uses a skillful
interweaving of narrative and sententious material to expose
the falsity of that belief.
The subject of Book Ten is the death of Alexander. The
key factors to consider in examining Walter’s treatment are,
first, the agents of his demise and their motives; second,
Alexander’s response to the fact that he is dying; and third,
Walter’s own commentary.
Alexander’s death is initiated by Natura, who fears his
considerable ambition. The importance of this innovation by
Walter has been lost on previous critics of the Alexandreis.
The mention of Natura is far more than a clumsy attempt, as

190 —
Cary labelled it, to follow the convention of including «divine
machinery» in a Latin epic (25). To the contrary, the role of
Natura in the death of Alexander is an allusion to Lucan’s
circumlocution, in his denunciation of the «mad son of Philip,»
that only Natura could put an end to him (10.41-42):

occurrit suprema dies, Naturaque solum

hunc potuit finem vaesano ponere regi.

At this critical point in the narrative, then, Walter directs our

attention to Lucan (26)—specifically to Lucan’s attack on
Alexander, a strange approach indeed in a work of panegyric!
To return to the story, Natura is upset by Alexander’s own
words (10.6-15):

interea memcri recolens Natura dolore

principis opprobrium mundo commune sibique,
qui nimis angustum terrarum dixerat orbem,
arcanasque sui partes aperire parabat
gentibus armatis, subito turbata verendos
canitie vultus, Hylen irata novumque
intermittit opus, et quas formare figuras
coeperat, et variis animas infundere membris
turbida deseruit, velataque nubis amictu
ad Styga tendit iter mundique arcana secundi.

With ‘this development we see that Alexander’s ambition (qui

nimis angustum terrarum dixerat orbem) is to be the ultimate
cause of his death because it will lead to the mobilizing of
supernatural forces against him. Natura descends to the nether

(25) Cary, op. cit., p. 183: «The conventions of the Latin epic
and the author’s personal inclinations lead to a misty mythology
in the Alexandreis. Mars, Bellona, Victoria, Fortuna, Leviathon,
Natura, and Proditio all appear in the text as personifications of
various powers ... above all there is some single Power ... no
Christian God ... it is some such impersonal power as stood behind
Greek mythology.»
(26) Cary, ibid., p. 192, suggests this allusion in a footnote but
misses its significance.

|
world to enlist the help of Satan. Her argument that
Alexander is their common enemy (10.28: nobis commune
flagellum) has its basis in Alexander’s own words. He had
earlier threatened to storm the underworld to find Darius
(5.252-255); and now Natura repeats to Satan Alexander’s
expressed desire to visit the land of the Antipodes (10.98-100):

ni tibi caveris, istud

non sinet intactum chaos, Antipodumque recessus
alteriusque volet Naturae cernere solem.

She obviously infers that he intends also to attack the under-

world (non sinet intactum chaos). She then appeals to Satan’s
reputation (10.101-104):

ergo age, communem nobis ulciscere pestem.

quae ‘tua laus, coluber, vel quae tua gloria, primum
eiecisse hominem, si tam venerabilis hortus
cedat Alexandro? nec plura ljoquuta recessit.

What praise, what glory (quae tua laus...quae tua gloria) will
Satan have gained from his victory over Adam if he loses to
Alexander? The appeal to fame works. Satan’s response is
immediate and angry. He gathers together the denizens of Hell
and addresses them (10.128-142): 7

nam quis erit modus, o socii? quae meta flagelli

huius? ait, quo cuncta tremunt, prolixior illi
si mora pro libito frangendum indulserit orbem?
ecce, sed id taceo, rupto parat obiice terrae
Tartareum penetrare chaos, belloque subactis
umbrarum dominis captivos ducere manes.
est tamen in fatis, quod abominor, adfore tempus,
quo novus in terris quadam partus novitate
nescio quis nascetur homo, qui carceris huius
ferrea subversis confringet claustra columnis,
vasaque diripiens et fortia fortior arma,
nostra triumphali populabitur atria ligno.

ee
 proinde duces mortis nascenti occurrite morbo
et regi Macetum: ne forte sit ille futurus
Inferni domitor, leto praecludite vitam.

This speech, it should be noted, prompts Proditio, or Treason,

to set in motion the poisoning of Alexander. In Satan’s mind
it is now definite: Alexander is planning to attack Hell, defeat
him in war, and take prisoners! Indeed, he has heard disturb-
ing prophecies of a man (nescio quis nascetur homo) who will
overthrow the kingdom of Hell. Just in case Alexander is
that individual, he must be killed. Satan is, of course, referring
to the prophecy, well known to Walter’s contemporary readers
through the apocryphal Gospel of Nicodemus, of the Harrowing
of Hell. But Christ, not Alexander, was the one ordained to
wield the triumphant lance. How much skill at exegesis can
we expect from Satan? Walter has made the death of his hero
into something of a comedy of errors.
With the announcement by Treason that Alexander is to
die when he drinks poisoned wine (10.148-149: dabitur liquor
iste Falerno / mixtus Alexandro), Walter reintroduces the
image of the king’s «thirst» for glory. He then combines it
with the themes of «sufficiency» and Fortuna to make explicit
Alexander’s inadequacy as an exemplar of virtus. Now
Alexander is a wretch (10.171: miser), though his ignorance of
the future (10.171: ignarus futuri) is nothing new; indeed,
that ignorance was revealed most dramatically (5.241-243) just
a few lines before he uttered the threat, which we now see
to have been laden with irony, to follow Darius to the under-
world if need be. The plans to conquer the rest of the world,
Walter informs us, Alexander dared to conceive «in the citadel
of his thirsting mind» (10.177: animi sitientis in arce); and
this same image stands at the head of an apostrophe which
Walter now addresses to Alexander (10.191-215):
quo tendit tua, Magne, fames? quis finis habendi,
quaerendi quis erit modus aut quae meta laborum?
nil agis, o demens: licet omnia clauseris uno
regna sub imperio, totumque subegeris orbem,

a
 semper egenus eris; animum nullius egentem
non res efficiunt, sed sufficientia; quamvis
sit modicum, si sufficiat, nullius egebis.
o facilem falli, qui cum parat arma, paratur
eius in interitum quod comprimat arma venenum.
crescit avara sitis iuveni, sed potio tantam
comprimet una sitim: nam proditor ille scelestis
instructus monitis, ventis advectus iniquis,
venerat Antipater Babylonem, ubi cum parricidis
complicibusque suis facinus tractabat acerbum.
quis furor, o superi? quid agis Fortuna? tuumne
protectum toties perimi patieris alumnum?
si fati mutare nequis decreta volentis,
ut pereat Macedo, saltem secreta revela
carnificum: potes auctores convertere leti
et mortis mutare genus; converte venenum
in gladium; satius et honestius occidet armis
is qui plus deliquit in his. sed forsitan armis
non’ potuere palam superi quem vincere dirum
clam potuit virus. fuit ergo dignius illum
occultum sentire nefas quam cedere ferro.

The first line, as I mentioned, picks up the food/drink image

for Alexander’s desire of glory (quo tendit tua, Magne, fames?).
The phrase finis habendi implies that this desire is a kind of
greed (cf. 7.310-311: habendi / ...amor). The modus and
meta of the second line are echoes of the speech of Satan
(10.128: nam quis erit modus...quae meta) which sealed
Alexander’s doom. The phrase nil agis is to be balanced by
the use of guid agis to introduce Fortuna into the passage.
The next five lines provide a clear statement of the meaning of
the «sufficiency» theme which Walter has threaded throughout
the Alexandreis. Possessions do not cause the mind to want
nothing, but only sufficiency. In part this is a reiteration of
the argument put forth by the Scythian envoy (8.425-431) that
the greedy man always hungers after more. But the language
of this passage, especially its joining of the notions of poverty
(semper egenus eris) and sufficiency (non res efficiunt, sed

i —
sufficientia), establish the Consolation as its primary source
(3¥-pE'3 i

«qui vero eget aliquo, non est usquequaque sibi ipse

sufficiens?» «minime» inquam. «tu itaque hanc in-
sufficientiam plenus,» inquit, «opibus sustinebas?»
«quidni?» inquam. «opes igitur nihilo indigentem
sufficientemque sibi facere nequeunt et hoc erat
quod promittere videbantur.»

Here we have a source of Walter’s argument that however

much he has a man who wants more is «in need» (eget in the
Consolation; semper egenus in the Alexandreis) because he
does not have enough (Boethius’ insufficientiam; Walter’s
sufficientia). Nor does the resemblance between the passages
end here, for Boethius continues (3. pr. 3):

quis autem modus est quo pellatur divitiis indigen-

tia? num enim divites esurire nequeunt? num sitire
non possunt?... quare si opes nec submovere possunt
indigentiam et ipsae suam faciunt, quid est quod eas
sufficientiam praestare credatis?

Rich men too hunger and thirst; but their wealth cannot re-
move that want nor create sufficiency. Like Boethius, Walter
links his discussion of sufficiency with a reference to thirst.
But Alexander’s is a figurative thirst (avara sitis) which the
poisoned wine will quench (potio tantam / comprimet una
sitim). I would note that the phrase preceding the mention
of the potio letalis (crescit avara sitis iuveni) refers us back to
the introduction of Alexander as a thirsting boy (1.30: puer
sitiens), thus completing the ironic suggestion of the original
phrase.
Quid agis Fortuna? Walter’s complaint that Fortuna is
unable or unwilling to change the instrument of Alexandet’s
death serves as a transition to the next scene, in which Walter
now completes the implied irony of another passage from the
first half of the epic. That passage is the laudatio of Book

— 145.—

10
Five (5.491-520) which concludes with the suggestion that a
contemporary king such as Alexander could effect the con-
version of the entire world to Christianity. There Walter
mentions first Carthage, then Spain, then «every people» (gens
omnis). That list can now be recognized as a foreshadowing
of the scene (expanded from Justin 12.12.1-3) in which
Carthage, Spain, and at last every nation rush to submit to
Alexander at Babylon (10.227...231...243-244: Carthaginis
arces... Hispania...omnis in unum natio concurrit), But Walter
immediately exclaims that Babylon was soon to prove fatal to
Alexander (10.260: sibi fatales...proh pudor! arces); similarly
the laudatio appears just after he has entered Babylon, the city
which Walter points out was to prove the king’s undoing
(6.1-5). Thus in two related passages the poet undercuts the
success of his hero at the moments when it appears greatest.
In Book Ten, as I said, Walter is drawing together the
various thematic elements of his epic. Nowhere is his skill in
this task more evident than in the simile which describes
Alexander as he rushes to Babylon to receive the homage of
those surrendering nations (10.249-259):

Magnus ut accepit, quod confluxisset in unum

ipsius opperiens adventum territus orbis,
ardet adire locum mortis, remisque citata
classe Semiramiam tendit festinus ad urbem.
non aliter procul inspecto grege tigris equorum,
cuius fulmineas urit sitis aspera fauces,
excutitur stimulante fame, vivumque cruorem
inmitis bibit et laceros incorporat artus.
quam si forte sequens occulto tramite pungat
cuspide venator, plangit fusoque per herbam
inmoritur sitiens nec adhuc satiata cruore.

The leunculus is now a tiger, but still hungry and thirsty. But
as Alexander is rushing to the city of his death (ardet adire
locum mortis), so the tiger is killed by a hunter. This is the
last of four extended similes likening Alexander to some kind
of animal. Before examining this simile, I will first review the

— 146—
others. In Book Three, Alexander is compared as he hurries
to meet Darius at Arbela to both a hunter and a hunting dog
(3.454-459):
nec mora, ne Dario regni penetrare liceret
interiore sui, canis ut venaticus altis
occultum silvis Actaeona nare sagaci
vestigat, vel qui venator Gallicus aprum
irato sequitur stringens venabula ferro,
haud aliter Darium venatur.

In Book Two, Alexander in battle is like a raging wolf (2.398-

407):

sic ruit in praedam ieiuna fauce lycaon,

cuius opem sicco mendicat ab ubere pendens
vagitus prolis, tandemque impegit in agros
caedis amica fames vacuis concepta sub antris.
stat pecus attonitum, quod non fugere audet, et
[ipsum
si fugiat nemoris alios incurret hiatus.
copula diripitur canibus, quos ore canoro
et baculo et palmis irritat ab aggere pastor.
haud aliter Macetum rex debacchatur in illam
barbariem, quae nunc profugum pavitare ferebat.

The wolf pounces on the astonished flock (stat pecus attonitum)

which is afraid to flee. The impact of this simile, I might
add, is heightened by the fact that earlier in the same book
(2.59-63) Walter compares the Persian army to a flock of sheep
(2.59: balantes ad pascua veris iturae) whose shepherd is
concerned—with reason!—lest a wolf diminish their number
(2.62: ne minuat numerum lupus). The first simile, which I
discussed at the beginning of this chapter, likens the young
Alexander to a lion cub slaying deer in his mind.
Several observations emerge from a consideration of the
four similes together. First, none of the images is unusual in
the depiction of an epic hero; in fact, they reflect Walter’s
intention of creating a «classical» hero without Christian color-

a
ing. We can say that the similes point out how wrong Satan
was in confusing Alexander with Christ. In animal terms,
there is nothing of the lamb in Alexander. What the similes
do establish is a link between the concept of animal violence
and images of hunger and thirst. The first simile shows the
lion cub licking his chops in vain (1.53: vacuum ferit improba
lingua palatum); and we should keep in mind that this simile
reinforces the picture of the young Alexander’s thirst (1.30:
arma puer sitiens) for military action. The second simile
likewise emphasizes the hunger of a wild beast. The wolf is
in fact a she-wolf, her children clinging to her dry dugs (sicco...
ab ubere pendens). She is hungry-mouthed (ieiuna fauce) (27),
and Walter notes that hunger is the companion of slaughter
(caedis amica fames). It is interesting to observe, as we follow
the progression of these images, that in Book Five Walter
briefly compares Alexander in battle to a she-bear maddened
by the loss of her cubs (5.184: advolat orbata catulis trucu-
lentior ursa). Also female is the tiger of the final simile. In
this instance she is driven by both hunger (excutitur stimulante
fame) and thirst (sitis aspera). Indeed, the last simile has
something in common with each of the other three. Walter
seems to have composed it as a summation of the animal
imagery in his epic. The first simile pictures the lion cub
spilling blood in his imagination (1.54: effunditque...cruorem),
while the tigress drinks real blood (vivumque cruorem...inmi-
tis bibit). She shares the hunger of the she-wolf in Book Two.
The third simile introduces the hunter (venator...sequitur); and
a hunter kills the tigress (sequens...venator). The death of
the tigress is the element which separates the last simile from
the others. The other animals, all images of Alexander in the
midst of conquest, live. The tigress dies, for now Alexander
is rushing toward his own doom. She dies still thirsty, not
yet having drunk enough (sitiens nec adhuc satiata). In this
too we will see that she is the image of the king.

(27) Cf. Consolation 4. pr. 3: «avaritia fervet alienarum opum

violentus ereptor? Ipi similem dixeris.»

=, He
 Let us turn now to Alexander’s own words and what they
reveal of his attitude as he faces death. He delivers two major
addresses in Book Ten, the first after he reenters Babylon
(10.260-329), the second just before he dies (10.398-417). The
two speeches are almost completely the work of Walter; taken
together, they provide a striking portrayal of Alexander’s out-
look at the end of his life. :
The first of the speeches contains an important passage
which reaffirms Alexander’s obsession with glory (10.314-319):

eia, quaeramus alio sub sole iacentes

Antipodum populos, ne gloria nostra relinquat
vel virtus quid inexpertum quo crescere possit,
vel quo perpetui mereatur carminis odas.
me duce nulla meis tellus erit invia: vincit
cuncta labor, nihil est investigabile forti.

This passage contains two echoes of the very words which have
led to Alexander’s death. He repeats his desire to search out
the Antipodes and again utters his boast that nothing is beyond
the reach of the bold man (nihil est investigabile forti). His
impulse to action (ne gloria nostra relinquat...quo perpetui
mereatur carminis odas) is still that reward which Aristotle
had promised—fame. Alexander, to be sure, sees glory and
virtus so Closely linked that he hardly differentiates between
them (gloria nostra...vel virtus).
As his previous words show Alexander still concerned with
glory, the final speech shows that he is unable, even at the
point of death, to turn his thoughts from the realm of Fortuna.
With the exception of its first sentence, which is taken from
Curtius (10.4.3), the entire address is Walter’s invention
(10.398-417):

«quis, cum terris excessero,» dixit

«talibus inveniet dignum? iam sufficit orbem
terrarum rexisse mihi, satis axe sub isto
prospera successit parentibus alea bellis.
iam taedere potest membris mortalibus istam

ce
| gee
 circumscribi animam, consumpsi tempus et aevum
deditus humanis, satis in mortalibus haesi.
hactenus haec: summum deinceps recturus Olym-
[pum
ad maiora vocor, et me vocat arduus aether,
ut solium regni et sedem sortitus in astris
cum Iove disponam rerum secreta brevesque
eventus hominum, superumque negotia tractem.
rursus in aethereas arces superumque cohortem
forsitan Aetnaeos armat praesumptio fratres,
duraque Typhoeo laxavit membra Pelorus.
sub Iove decrepito superos et sidera credunt
posse capi ex facili, rursusque lacessere tentant.
sed quia Mars sine me belli discrimen abhorret,
consilio Iovis et superum, licet ipse relucter,
invitus trahor ad regnum.»

Alexander states that he is satisfied to have ruled the world,

and has enjoyed enough success. Now his spirit is weary of
being enclosed in a mortal frame, for he is called to greater
things. He is to sit among the stars and with Jupiter dispose
the secrets of the universe and manage the affairs of men and
gods. Perhaps again the giants are contemplating an attack
against Olympus. Because Mars does not want to face a
decisive battle without Alexander, he is being called to help,
even though he goes unwillingly.
Alexander’s final hour is not tainted by false modesty. The
ideas which he expresses are consistent with the values he has
held throughout the epic. His opening expression of satis-
faction (iam sufficit orbem / terrarum rexisse mihi) is the
fourth such statement made by him. On reaching Asia, he had
said that the conquest of that continent would suffice for him
(1.440-441: mihi sufficit una / haec regio). Later, when ex-
horting his men, he declared that glory was enough (2.485:
mihi gloria sufficit una). Later, however, the Scythian envoy
asserts that Alexander will never be satisfied with his achieve-
ments (8.427: tibi pauper inopsque videris). Alexander’s third
statement then reveals how much his ambition has swelled

— 150—
since he first touched the shore of Asia. The hero who once
would have found that one region sufficient now discovers that
the earth itself is too small a domain (9.565: terrae tractus do-
mino non sufficit uni). It is of course this excessive ambition,
which Natura decides must be thwarted, that sets in motion
the chain of events which make these Alexander’s final words.
The gambling image which completes the expression of
sufficiency in Book Ten (satis... / prospera successit parentibus
alea bellis) has a two-fold significance. On the one hand, it
harks back to the use of this image by Aristotle in his discourse
on virtus (1.118: dum luditur alea Martis), and implies
Alexander’s belief that he has attained the pinnacle of achieve-
ment possible for a mortal hero. The same reference, on the
other hand, has a second implication. For in the Alexandreis,
as I have shown, Walter uses the dice as an image of Fortuna.
Darius employs this image when he warns Alexander that he
will come to a similar fate (7.280-284). The connection be-
tween dice, the wheel of Fortuna, and Alexander is stated
with particular emphasis in the speech of the Scythian envoy
(8.451-455):

consilium ergo salubre sequens quod temporis offert

gratia praesentis, dum prospera luditur a te
alea, dum celeris Fortunae munera nondum
accusas, impone modum felicibus armis,
ne rota forte tuos evertat versa labores.

Alexander’s words (prospera successit...alea) echo those of the

Scythian (prospera luditur... / alea). By having Alexander use
this image to describe his military conquests, Walter implies
that his hero still sees his achievements as the result of the
continuing favor of Fortuna.
Some parts of Alexander’s speech may seem at first to
reflect a changed attitude, even one of philosophic resignation
(satis in mortalibus haesi); but here too the language invites
a comparison between Alexander and Boethius, and that
comparison belies our initial impression. Alexander is in fact
not «satisfied.» He goes on to say that his death is not a

— 151—
departure from involvement in human concerns. To the
contrary, he looks forward to helping Jupiter govern the even-
tus hominum. Compare this attitude with the argument of
Philosophy in the Consolation (2. pr. 7):

sin vero bene sibi mens conscia terreno carcere re-

soluta caelum libera petit, nonne omne terrenum
negotium spernat quae se caelo fruens terrenis gau-
det exemptam?

This is the passage which concludes the belittling attack on

glory by Philosophy that I discussed earlier. She argues that
the soul of the man who has reached understanding, when it
is loosed from earthly imprisonment (terreno carcere resoluta),
will rejoice in its freedom and shun any involvement in earthly
traffic (omne terrenum negotium spernat). Not only does
Alexander expect to continue his involvement in earthly traffic,
but he also’assumes that death will add a second level of in-
volvement—with the affairs of the gods (eventus hominum
superumque negotia tractem). Moreover, instead of rejoicing
to leave this life, he goes unwillingly (invitus trahor ad reg-
num). Finally, in what specific negotium does Alexander
expect to be most active? War. It would seem that he, like
the tigress used to describe him, has not yet had his fill of
blood. Through his use of the gaming image Alexander has
reaffirmed the relationship of war and Fortuna; and that
relationship now casts a special light on his concluding assertion
that the gods undoubtedly need his military expertise (Mars
sine me belli discrimen abhorret), the language of which evokes
two other references to gaming—Aristotle’s alea Martis and
Darius’ neque enim hoc discrimine solum | alea versatur mea
(7.281-282). He is leaving life, not Fortuna behind.
What, then, can be said about Alexander’s attitude?
Certainly he has taken to heart Aristotle’s exhortation to seek
virtus in the attainment of glory through military achievement.
But just as clearly he has been unable to transcend the limi-
tations of Aristotle’s teaching. He cannot envision even his

— 152—
after-life as anything but more of the same; and what remains
the same is a preoccupation with transient goods under the
sway of Fortuna. Alexander’s words throughout the epic
reveal little growth except in the magnitude of his ambition.
Never satisfied, he seeks first Asia, then the world, which
when conquered seems too small. Thwarted, he dies seeing
death only as the entrance to another theater for playing the
game of war.
Although Alexander’s speeches in themselves provide a
summation of the themes which have been developed through-
out the Alexandreis, Walter nonetheless inserts one last apo-
strophe as though to insure that his message be understood
(10.433-454):

o felix mortale genus, si semper haberet

aeternum prae mente bonum, finemque timeret,
qui tam nobilibus media quam plebe creatis
improvisus adest. animae discrimine magno
dum quaerunter opes, dum fallax gloria rerum
mortales oculos vanis circumvolat alis,
dum petimus profugos qui nunc venduntur honores,
verrimus aequoreos fluctus, vitamque perosi
et caput et merces tumidis committimus undis.
cumque per alpinas hiemes turbamque latronum
Romuleas arces et avarae moenia Romae
cernere solliciti, si cursu forte beato
ad natale solum patriumque revertimur orbem,
ecce repentinae modicaeque occasio febris
dissolvit toto quacumque paravimus aevo.
Magnus in exemplo est: cui non suffecerat orbis,
sufficit exciso defossa marmore terra
quinque pedum fabricata domus, qua nobile corpus
exigua requievit humo, donec Ptolemaeus,
cui legis Aegyptum in partem cessisse, verendi
depositum fati toti venerabile mundo
transtulit ad dictam de nomine principis urbem.

Walter begins by drawing a contrast between the true aeter-

num bonum and the transitory goods sought by mortals. In

— 153—
this context, he turns to glory, which for a second time (cf.
2.533) he calls fallax, thus echoing not only the words of
the Consolation (3. pr. 6: gloria vero quams fallax saepe)
but indeed the whole thrust of Boethius’ contention that
the desire for fame is vanitas. But that very desire and a
commitment to the mutable world—that is, a commitment of
himself to the power of Fortuna—are the two essential com-
ponents of Alexander’s heroic outlook. Walter now makes
reference to Fortuna by means of an image which he has used
before, that of mortals entrusting themselves to the sea (et
caput et merces tumidis committimus undis). Then he draws
everything together with a final mention of the theme of suf-
ficiency (cui non suffecerat orbis). Now the earth, which
contains Alexander’s body, is no longer too small for him. In
the midst of all this, Walter’s reminder to us that Alexander
is an exemplum hardly seems necessary. To be frank, I have
long regarded it as heavy handed; and yet, given the number
of readers whom the obvious meaning of the epic has eluded,
perhaps it is excusable. The notion of Alexander as an exem-
plum draws us back, as did the reference to Natura at the
beginning of Book Ten, to Lucan’s denunciation of Alexander.
It is Walter’s last warning to the reader to look beneath the
surface narrative, with its apparent praise of Alexander, and to
perceive the real meaning of this ironic, Christian epic.
Like the Waltharius, the Alexandreis concludes on a joking
note. Employing the topos of ending that «night is approach-
ing» (10.455-456: mersurus lumina nocte / Phoebus), Walter
adds the comment, perhaps inspired by the conclusion of Ovid’s
Ars Amatoria (3.809: lusus habet finem), that «I have played
enough, now it is fitting to end the game» (10.457: iam satis
est lusum, iam ludum incidere praestat). But has Walter fi-
nished playing? He continues with an odd circumlocution for
«I am ready to turn to another composition» (10.458-460):

Pierides, alios deinceps modulamina vestra

alliciant animos: alium mihi postulo fontem,
qui semel exhaustus sitis est medicina secundae.

aa
| aoe
Walter has managed in this passage to attach to himself im-
portant elements of his criticism of Alexander. The gaming
image (iam satis est lusum) calls to mind the alea belli. His.
claim to be satisfied is belied by his desire to begin anew,
much as the dying Alexander looked forward to warring again.
Walter even speaks of his poetic ambition as a thirst (sitis...
secundae)! The last lines of the epic, addressed to Walter’s
patron, return to the theme with which the epic began—glory
(10.466-469):

nam licet indignum sit tanto praesule carmen,

cum tamen exuerit mortales spiritus artus,
vivemus pariter: vivet cum vate superstes
gloria Guillermi nullum moritura per aevum.

This is the same formula, of course, which Walter uses to

promise immmortal fame to Darius and Patron. In each in-
stance the phrase calls to mind Lucan, the Bellum Civile, and
the «glory» of Caesar. Moreover, the phrase gloria Patronis
(6.510) is now revealed as a punning prelude to this claim of
immortality for Walter’s patron William. As I mentioned, the
claim itself takes us back to the beginning of the epic, with its
emphasis on the glory of Alexander. Between that opening
and this conclusion, however, Walter has unleashed a clever
and biting attack upon the desire for glory as vain and foolish.
Should we not see, then, especially in the claim of personal
glory (vivemus pariter) found in his last words proof that
Walter, despite his assertion a few lines earlier, is not yet
through with his game?

— 155—
 gee
sefMets r
Che sige ar tithe: gibi
ia gersSe 44 bogs ervehsbeol
iskelvtend)s ve gabidems sky beJd
tee seal os brtnntae: (bikie redacke saath
A pens sigBe -70wk dictenid sine seamselssiding
9 i Ms
PRisha ey corgenalEas ans
2
t, ae to. ~—"
4
of “uaaltie ~ hens
OTB sigeemaatin isan Sins omialinds
+i) AR maria i aatgrts ah, at
. agiesagne ie. TiS
A ESE Rie. Ae eoet ou ic;
rad \~* +

2%
s yowod rit ad ? he
yisats Sit aOR dg iesGatiig ;
4
wlpe aaae ie.
he 5 ooh
at 4y” Blind

Crauet (eink tale ys|

& tf ase it Sides
. Siar H i bey
c= : ) a 7 éf <othag eld"ana
:
Der tage ; ‘te?
= ; p Metis? mite £19. 7a ini acta
q 7 f
mm . se eS - Wsire: .--

hr hd$4:

’ :
ane =e VOTE
mate,
?

OCI MRE

om CPR
 IRONY AND CHRISTIAN EPIC

Nor doth this grandeur and majestic show

Of luxury, though call’d magnificence,
More than of arms before, allure mine eye,
Much less my mind; though thou should’st add to tell
Thir sumptuous gluttonies, and gorgeous feasts
On Citron tables of Aélantic stone,
(For I have also heard, perhaps have read)
Their wines of Setia, Cales, and Falerne,
Chios and Crete, and how they quaff in Gold,
Crystal and Murrhine cups emboss’d with Gems
And studs of Pearl, to me should’st tell who thirst
And hunger still: then Embassies thou show’st
From Nations far and nigh; what honor that,
But tedious waste of time to sit and hear
So many hollow compliments and lies,
Outlandish flatteries? then proceed’st to talk
Of the Emperor, how easily subdu’d,
How gloriously; I shall, thou say’st, expel
A brutish monster; what if I withal
Expel a Devil who first made him such.
Paradise Regained 4.110-129

We have come full circle. Walter’s comments concerning

glory not only repeat the theme with which his own poem
begins but also, by their emphasis upon the vanity of earthly
fame, restate the argument used by Juvencus to justify the

— 157—
innovation of presenting Christian matter in epic form. The
uneasiness which Juvencus felt about the compatibility of epic
and Christian values was shared, I believe, by Gerald and
Walter of Chatillon. The two poets lived centuries apart and
wrote in very different circumstances; but it is difficult to
imagine that either was «threatened» by the attractiveness of
the Aeneid, Bellum Civile, or Thebaid—although perhaps
Gerald would have shared to a greater extent Augustine’s
wotty about weeping for the errores of Aeneas rather than for
his own. Both men, as artists, sensed the inadequacy of the
classical epic tradition for the expression of Christian values,
and both demonstrate that inadequacy by ridiculing the notion
of a Christian epic hero. The Waltharius and the Alexandreis
are not attempts to resolve the problem which is exploited so
effectively in Sedulius’ De Quodam Verbece. Although Walter
of Aquitaine and Alexander the Great are both superior men
who are admirable in many respects, they are prevented from
being worthy exemplars by flaws that are integral parts of the
system of values by which their lives are governed. The poets
seem interested not in offering balanced appraisals of «heroic»
behavior, but rather in emphasizing those aspects most sus-
ceptible to Christian attack. Gerald directs his attack against
avarice as the foundation of the Germanic heroic code. Walter
is concerned more with the classical system of heroic values,
and attacks the vanity of the search for worldly fame which
it countenances.
Gerald regards glory and wealth as the twin motivators of
the warriors in the heroic society which he is describing in the
Waltharius. The goal of the heroic individual is to gain glory,
that is, a reputation for excellence, through the performance of
bold deeds. Material wealth is a symbol of the esteem which
he has earned. The importance of these two factors can be
seen in Gerald’s comment that none of Attila’s men dared to
pursue the formidable Walter despite the desire to win through
acts of valor long-lasting praise (411: virtute sua laudem
captare perennem) and money-bags stuffed with treasure (412:
gazam infarcire cruminis). Gerald paints glory as the greater

— 158—
of the two. Therefore, Walter fights to keep his treasure
because he will suffer a diminution of his reputation should
it be wrested from him. Moreover, acts of vengeance are
required to keep one’s reputation unsullied—or the reputation
of one’s lord, as is shown by Gunther’s appeal to Hagen to
enter the battle lest the Franks suffer an irreparable shame by
losing to a single foe; and Hagen enters the fray with a decla-
ration that he will do something memorable—that is, exact
vengeance—or die.
Germanic heroic literature is filled with expressions of the
sentiments which are held by the characters of the Waltharius.
The two surviving fragments of the Old English poem Waldere,
which was probably composed in the eighth century, contain
the earliest written version of the legend which Gerald was
retelling. There we find a similar statement that the warrior’s
duty is to distinguish himself by good [valiant] deeds (1.22-
23: weortha thé selfne / gadum daédum). The notion that the
wattior’s two choices are death or glory is articulated with
particular force in another passage from the Waldere (1.8-11):

Now the day has come when thou shalt accomplish

One of two: either lose thy life,
Or win long fame, O Aelfhere’s son,
Among all mankind.

In like manner Beowulf argues that vengeance is a better

response than mourning to the death of a friend, for by the
former course of action the hero gains glory (Boewulf 1383-
1389):

Beowulf spoke, the son of Ecgtheow:

«Sorrow not, brave one! Better for a man
To avenge a friend than much to mourn.
All men must die; let him who may
Win glory ere death. That guerdon is best
For a noble man when his name survives him.

The hero’s duty is to avenge the death of a friend, as here;

— 159—
or, as in the Waltharius, of a kinsman. Elsewhere in the
Beowulf we can find expresion of the importance of treasure
to the warrior as a material symbol of his excellence. (cf. 2183-
2196). But a passage of particular interest to the reader of
the Waltharius occurs in the late tenth-century heroic poem
The Battle of Maldon (55-61):
Too shameful it seems
That you with our tribute should take to your ships
Unfought, when thus far you’ve invaded our land.
You shall not so easily take our treasure,
But sword-edge and spear-point first shall decide,
The grim play of battle ere tribute is granted.

The essential point made here is that treasure given up without

resistance brings little honor to the victor and shame to the
defeated. The sentiment is similar to Walter’s determination
not to surrender to Gunther all the treasure which he has
transported with such difficulty over such a great distance.
Gerald, then, is not misrepresenting the various elements
of the heroic system of values. His innnovation is to subject
them to criticism by suggesting that the desire for both treasure
and glory is a kind of avarice. Gerald suppresses the impor-
tance of the theme of Hagen’s conflicting loyalties, which
presumably occupied a central position in the vernacular ver-
sions of the story, in order to emphasize the obvious greed of
Walter and Gunther, and to accuse Hagen of it through the
equation of avarice with the quest for fame. Gerald thus
undercuts the heroic stature and pronouncements of his char-
acters by exposing their values merely as manifestations of
sinfulness.
To refashion the story of Alexander into a Christian exem-
plum it was necessary for Walter of Chatillon only to change
the emphasis of two themes—glory and Fortuna—already
prominent in the material which he inherited. Walter sees the
pursuit of glory at the heart of the Greco-Roman concept of
the heroic life. A name extended per saecula is the reward for
excellence which Aristotle holds out to the young Alexander;

— 160—
and the lack of fame after death is Alexander’s one great fear.
This desire for glory was a central theme in Curtius’ account
of Alexander’s career, and Curtius emphasizes as well the role
of Fortuna in his success. In addition, moralistic interpreta-
tions of Alexander’s accomplishments—by both classical and
Christian writers—had long derided his success as owed more
to luck than virtus. Walter, however, uses the theme of
Fortuna in a new way to expose the vanity of the search for
worldly fame to which Alexander devotes his life. He is able
to invest this old theme with new meaning by drawing on the
attack in the Consolation of Philosophy upon Fortuna and
those who submit themselves to her power. For Walter,
Caesar’s willing submission to Fortuna (Bellum Civile 1.226:
te, Fortuna, sequor) seems to stand as a summation of an in-
adequate outlook on life. A Boethian framework ties together
the otherwise episodic narrative, and is used by Walter to
belittle the outmoded classical ideal of virtus and its goal of
glory. Like Walter of Aquitaine, Alexander is guilty of a
foolish absorption in temporal goods which blinds him to real
values. And, as Boethius explains, those who set their hearts
on a mutable rather than an immutable good have forsaken
reason and have subjected themselves to Fortuna.
The influence of Boethius on Walter’s thought can be seen
not only in the Alexandreis but also in his shorter satiric poems.
The seventh satire, for example, contains the following com-
ment on the transitory nature of worldly goods (7a.6-7):

omnis inest vanitas mundi speciebus

est Phebo mobilius quidquid lustrat Phebus.
alternantur singula singulis diebus,
ludit in humanis divina potentia rebus.
mors inexorabilis secum trahit optima,
set nec parcit pessimis, fert cum parvis maxima
infimis sublimia, summis equat infima,
tendimus huc omnes, domus est hec ultima (1).

(1) Cf. the following stanzas from satires 4 and 13 for references
to avarice and Fortuna. First 4.18:

— 161—

at
This general statement on the flux of temporal affairs contains
several images prominent in the Alexandreis, including the
allusion to Fortuna’s wheel suggested by the passage of time
(alternantur singula) conjoined with the mingling of.the highest
with the lowest (infimis sublimia). Walter’s use here of the
gaming image (ludit in humanis...rebus) linked not to Fortuna
by name but to the concept of a divina potentia is particularly
arresting. The notion of death as the end of Fortuna’s power
is given as true for all; but we recall that Alexander’s lust for
glory blinded him even to this fact.
What is common to the attacks against the heroic tradition
made in the Waltharius and the Alexandreis is a complaint that
the «hero» is concerned with the wrong things. The glory
for which Walter of Aquitaine and Alexander strive is exposed
as a phantom, and their desire itself as a sinful greediness.
Alexander knows no deity except Fortuna; and in battle Walter
neglects the God he professes to worship in favor of Fortuna.
War—or to use the descriptive Old English phrase grimm
githplega—is, to be sure, the most fitting metaphor for their
moral failure. It is a grim game (Waltharius 186: fraxinus et
cornus ludum miscebat in unum) or even a dice game (Alexan-
dreis 1.118: dum luditur alea Martis). But as with all games
of chance, the players are beholden to Lady Luck. So to Gerald
and Walter the heroic warrior, whether his values are Germanic
or Greco-Roman (and the two systems are in their essential
nature indistinguishable), is immersed in a transitory world
of gaming to the exclusion of the real world with its real life

quanto plura possidet, quanto plus ditescit,

tanto magis locuples sitit et ardescit;
nam sicut ydropicus, qui semper arescit,
crescit amor nummi, quantum ipsa pecunia crescit.
Then 13.14:
quid ergo Sciencie domum tibi struis
sapiens si pauper es, nec vales nec cluis;
set si ditat opibus te Fortuna suis,
diffusa est gratia in labiis tuis.
Note the appearance in 4.18 of the image of thirst (sitis et ardescit)
applied to greed which Walter uses so effectively in the Alexandreis.

— 162—
 and death struggle for salvation. The two poets have adopted
the conventions of epic narrative to attack the moral assump-
tions of that literary tradition.
Even though indications of the poets’ ironic intent are
readily available, both poems frequently have ben described as
setious heroic narratives. In the first place, although an un-
derlying Christian theme is not to be expected in every medieval
narrative, we should be wary of discounting this possibility
when the author is a monk or an accomplished satirist. With
regard to Walter of Chatillon we can be even more confident,
for (as I showed in the introductory chapter) his other poetry
reveals a fondness and capacity for just the kind of sustained
irony which he employs in the Alexandreis. When in the
prologue to his epic Walter decries the tendency of people to
condemn works capable of more than one meaning (prol.
12-13: et facilius sit ei ambigua depravare quam in partem
interpretari meliorem), is he not giving a hint to the reader not
to expect a simple tale?
What other arguments can be adduced from internal evi-
dence? If the Waltharius and Alexandreis are not ironic but
positive celebrations of heroic virtue, we must conclude that
both poets have gone about their task ineptly. However, we
know from his satires that Walter was capable of better, and
Gerald takes pains to show that he is in control of his art.
What are we then to make of the apparent inconsistencies
within both epics? Let us take them as directives to thematic
consistency at a deeper level. In the Waltharius, the apparent
carelessness of the «catalogue of wounds» and the odd abrupt-
ness of the conclusion are in fact evocations of passages from
the Bible and the Psychomachia which in turn unlock the
meaning of the ironic sub-theme. Similar «carelessness» is
observable in the Alexandreis. At the beginning of Book Six,
Walter points to Alexander’s fall from virtus. That fall is ex-
pressed in terms of his corruption by the luxury of Babylon, and
makes specific reference to the vices against which Aristotle had
warned: luxuria, drunkenness, and sexual attraction. Walter
even anticipates this passage in Book Three when he laments

— 163—
the corrupting power of Fortuna on Alexander’s inborn excel-
lence. However, an examination of the remaining five books
reveals no further treatment of this theme. Even Alexander’s
death, thought caused by poisoned wine, is not connected with
an accusation of intemperance. Indeed, Walter’s decision to
pass over in silence the faults treated by Curtius has been used
as part of the argument that he wished to make his portrait of
Alexander wholly positive. But the question remains: Why
does Walter mention these vices as the cause of Alexander’s
downfall if he is then going to ignore them? Even if corrupted
to some degree at Babylon, Walter’s Alexander does not fall
from virtus, at least that defined by Aristotle at the beginning
of the epic. Alexander’s death can be traced to his insatiable
desire for personal glory, an ambition which is given legitimacy,
as it were, by the fact of its inclusion as the goal of a heroic
life. I suggest that this apparent inconsistency in the Alexan-
dreis, like that in the catalogue of wounds at the end of the
Waltharius, is meant to give the reader two possibilities—a
careless poet or a consistency at a second level of meaning.
Unfortunately, the predilection of many scholars to assume
carelessness combined with their own carelessness in over-
looking the subtle interplay of classical and Christian allusions
in the two poems has made irony a feature of the critical
reception of the Waltharius and Alexandreis. On the one
hand, no Latin epic composed between the ninth and twelfth
centuries, with the possible exception of the Ruodlieb, contains
a successful portrait of the type of hero mocked by Gerald and
Walter; indeed, that failure seems to reinforce the argument
that the epic genre was ill suited to the portrayal of Christian
virtue. On the other hand, the surface narratives of the two
ironic epics have proven so attractive that Walter of Aquitaine
and Alexander the Great are often cited as convincing examples
of the very heroic type which they are intended to mock. In
this respect, the reception of the Waltharius and Alexandreis
is not wholly dissimilar to that of the Consolation, since
Boethius’ portrait of Fortuna proved to be far more beguiling
a creation to later readers than his Lady Philosophy.

— 164—
 \

In the Waltharius and Alexandreis, then, we possess extra-

ordinary examples of the use of irony sustained through an
entire narrative; and a recognition of that irony is essential to
our understanding of the subtle and complex artistry to be
found in both poems. It is fair to say that Gerald and Walter
are both playing a joke on their «heroes,» and that the fault
is ours if we miss the point of the ludus. The Waltharius
is, I think, the more effective work, perhaps in part because
it is less difficult to maintain a mocking tone in a work of
1456 hexameters than in a work almost four times as long. I
would not shrink from calling Gerald’s poem a masterpiece
of comic narrative. The surface tale is lively and engrossing;
the sub-theme, hidden for a time but revealed in a way that
allows the reader to congratulate himself for his own clever-
ness. The mocking tone which pervades the work keeps one
constantly amused. But surely both poets deserve to be ranked
among the best ironists of the medieval period. The exami-
nation of the Alexandreis lends support to the growing interest
in the use of veiled criticism by twelfth and thirteenth-century
writers of romance such as Chrétien, Gottfried von Strassburg
and Hartman von Aue. In their detached and critical treatment
of «love» and their use of irony to resolve the problem of the
discrepancies between the conventions of the new romance
genre and Christian caritas we can, I believe, see striking
similarities with Walter’s examination of «heroism.» Indeed,
we should remember that the Exeas was composed at almost
the same time as the Alexandreis. One genre which would
produce the most memorable figures of late medieval narrative
was being born while another, the classicizing epic, was being
pronounced by one of its most skillful practitioners as a dead
end for the depiction of exemplary behavior.
Yet I must emphasize, in concluding, that even in their
mockery Gerald and Walter pay tribute to the vitality of the
- Latin epic tradition. No slavish imitators, they reshaped their
models to new purposes; and in the course of exposing the
inadequacy of the genre they produced two of the most success-
ful and enduring adaptations of Latin epic. The Waltharius

— 165—
and Alexandreis are minor triumphs, to be sure; but it would
tax the genius of Spenser and Milton to compose epics in which
criticism of an outmoded virtus is subordinated to the larger
purpose of forging the definition of a truly Christian heroism.
Nonetheless, once understood, the use of irony by Gerald and
Walter in their imaginative responses to the problem of the
Christian hero is seen to be in the best tradition of creative
transformation; and their achievement offers proof that some
works of art can be taken seriously only with laughter.

— 166—
 LIST OF EDITIONS

Gerald: Waltharius. Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Poetae Latini

Aevi Carolini, Volume 6, Part 1, ed. Karl Strecker (Weimar,
1951).
— Gerald’s prologue: Waltharius, ed. K. Strecker (Berlin, 1947).
Walter of Chatillon. M. Philippi Gualtheri Alexandreis, ed. F. A. W.
Mueldener (Leipzig, 1863).
— Moralisch-satirische Gedichte Walters von Chdatillon, ed. K.
Strecker (Heidelberg, 1929).
— Die Lieder Walters von Chatillon in der Handschrift 351 von
St. Omer, ed. K. Strecker (Berlin, 1964 [1925]).
Vergil. P. Vergili Maronis Opera, ed. R. A. B. Mynors (Oxford, 1969).
Statius. Statius (2 Volumes), ed J. H. Mozley (Loeb Classical Library:
London, 1961 [1928]).
Lucan. Lucan: The Civil War, ed J. D. Duff (Loeb Classical Library:
London, 1969 [1928]).

CHAPTER ONE

Quintilian: Institutio Oratoria (Two Volumes), ed. M. Winterbottom

Oxford, 1970).
Donatus: Ars Grammatica, in H. Keil, ed. Grammatici Latini,
Volume 4 (Hildesheim, 1961).
Isidore of Seville: Etymologiae (Two Volumes), ed. W. M. Lindsay
(Oxford, 1911).
Juvencus: Evangeliorum Libri Quattuor, ed. Johannes Huemer,
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Volume 4
(Vienna, 1891).
Sedulius Scottus: De Quodam Verbece, MGH PLAC, Volume 3, ed.
Ludwig Traube (Berlin, 1896).

CHAPTER TWO

Prudentius: (Two Volumes, ed. H. J. Thomson (Loeb Classical

Library: London, 1961).

— 167—
CHAPTER THREE

Silius Italicus: Punica (Two Volumes), ed. J. D. Duff {Loeb Classical

Library: London, 1927-1934).
Claudian: Opera, MGH Auctores Antiquissimi, ed. Th. Birt (Berlin,
1892).
Quintus Curtius: (Two Volumes), ed. John C. Rolfe (Loeb Classical
Library: London, 1962).
Justin: Epitoma Historiarum Philippicarum Pompei Trogi, ed.
Francis Ruehl (Leipzig, 1915).
Boethius, ed. H. F. Stewart and E. K. Rand (Loeb Classical Library:
London, 1918; revised by S. J. Tester, 1973).
Geoffrey Chaucer: Works, ed. W. W. Skeat (Oxford, 1900).

CONCLUSION

Beowulf, transl. Charles W. Kennedy (New York, 1962 [1940]).

An Anthology of Old English Poetry [Waldere, The Battle of Maldon],
transl. Charles W. Kennedy (New York, 1960).

— 168—
 Analytical Index

A Braun, W., 1
Brinkmann, H., 17
Achilles, 87, 89, 90, 109
Aeneas, 1-3, 9, 11, 12, 26, 28, 30,
3iye53se05, 61, 92,,93, 158 C
Ahl, F., 77
Alan of Lille, 62, 63 Caesar, Julius, 69, 73, 76, 77, 91-
Alexander the Great, 2, 12, 61- 93, 126, 161
155 passim, 158, 160-164 Carmen de Bello Saxonico, 1
allegoria, 2 Carmina Burana, 104
Anderson, A. R., 80 Cary, G., 63, 76-78, 141
Andersson, T., 16, 23, 32 Cesare, M. di, 64
annominatio, 66 Chaucer, 76, 84
Aristotle, 80-88, 92, 93, 117, 125, Cherniss, M., 18
133, 149, 151, 152, 160, 163, 164 Chrétien de Troyes, 4, 5, 165
Arnulf of Orleans, 4 Christensen, H., 61, 63, 65, 74,
Attila, 15, 21, 22, 26, 28-31, 33, 40, 77, 78
41, 45, 47, 54-56, 158 Cicero, 3
Augustine, St., 18, 158 Claudian, 70, 115
Corinthians II, 47
Courcelle, P., 84
B Curtius,- EOR.,36
Curtius, Quintus, 75, 90, 96, 98,
Battle of Maldon, 160 102, 104, 107, 109, 114, 117-123,
Benoit, 74 127-129, 131-134, 136-138, 140, 149,
Benton, J., 3 161, 164
Beowulf, 37, 159, 160
Bezzola, R. R., 63
Bible, 9, 11, 20, 31, 47, 48, 50, 58, D
106, 163
Boethius, 18, 82-88, 90-95, 97, 101, Darius, 65, 66, 74, 79, 94, 96-103,
103, 104, 108, 111, 116, 120-123, 105, 106, 109, 111, 113-115, 119-127,
126, 139, 140, 145, 148, 151, 152, 131, 133, 139, 140, 142, 143, 147,
154, 161, 164 150,155
Bolgar, R. Re, 16,639 78 Dido, 3, 26, 28, 30, 31, 54
Boncompagno de Signa, 3 Donatus, 3, 4
Brand, Jonsson, 63 Dronke, P., 16, 30

— 169—
 E ironia, 2, 3, 4, 74, 117
Isaac, 11
Eberhard of Bethune, 62, 71
Ekkehard, I., 17, 23 Ais
ekphrasis, 65, 100, 105, 106, 109
Endt, I., 4 Jakob von Maerlant, 62
Eneas, 165 Jerome, St., 10
exemplum, 72, 73, 76, 78, 98, 100, Jesus Christ, 11, 19, 106, 116, 143
101, 114, 135, 140, 154, 160 John of Salisbury, 61
Exodus, 50 Jones, G., 18, 31, 48
Joseph of Exeter, 62, 74
F Josephus, 75, 90
Justin, 88, 122, 125, 146
Fortuna, 52, 72, 75-78, 83-85, 87,
Juvenal, 116
89, 90, 92-106, 108-115, 118, 119,
122-125, 127-133, 135-140, 143-145,
149, 151-154, 160-162, 164 K
Friedman, J., 83
Karolus Magnus et Leo Papa, 1
Friedrich, W.-H., 77
Katscher, R., 16, 18, 32
Knapp, F., 63, 64, 71, 74, 75, 78
G Krammer, H., 17
Gerald, 1, 2,05, 8,012; me; 15-59 Kratz--D., 1, 8.016, 74
passim, 64.67, 69, 78, 86, 103, Krause, W., 2
104, 140, 154, 158-160, 162-166 Kunzer, R., 5
Ghellinck, J. de, 63
Giordano, C., 63 19
Goswin, F., 135
Gottfried von Strassburg, 5, 165 Langosch, K., 16
Green, D. H., 4 Lewalski, B., 7
Grimm, J., 16, 17 Libro de Alexandre, 61, 62, 63, 90
Gunther, 19, 20, 25, 26, 32-37, 39- Ligurinus, 1
45, 47-53, 57, 58, 159, 160 Livy, 75
Lucan, 4, 64, 65, 67-75, 77, 91-93,
115, 120, 126, 141, 154, 155, 158,
H
161
Hagen, 15, 19, 20, 25, 32-40, 42, Luke, 10
43, 45, 48-53, 55-58, 159, 160
Hagendahl, H., 2 M
Haidu, P., 5
Hartmann von Aue, 165 Malkiel, M., 63, 90
Haskins, C. H., 74 Manitius, M., 61, 63
Henry of Ghent, 62 Mark, 50
Henry of Settimello, 62 Marrow, J., 10
Hercules, 11, 80, 87 Marti, B., 4
Hiltgunt, 26, 28, 34, 41-43, 45, 46 Matthew, 9, 51
Homer, 6, 65, 89, 109 Matthew of Venddéme, 62
Huppé, B., 18 Michael, I., 90
Milton, 7, 166
I Miniconi, P.-J., 8, 23
Morford, M., 73
imitatio, 19, 63, 78 Morris, William, 78

— 170—
 N Sedulius, Scottus, 7-13, 19, 47, 65,
158
Natura, 65, 72, 138, 140, 141, 142, Sheridan, J., 78
151, 154 Silius, Italicus, 70
Nibelungenlied, 15 Smiths Me 7
Nicodemus, 143 Spenser, 166
Nigellus, Wireker, 62 Stackmann, K., 24 :
Statius, 16, 18-20, 23, 24, 64, 65,
O 68, 77, 158
Steinen, W. von den, 17, 18, 31,
Odysseus, 93 32, 48
Ovid, 24 Strecker, K., 17, 62
Owen, D. D. R., 4
T
P
Theodulf of Orleans, 7
Panzer, F., 23, 24 Trogus Pompeius, 75
Patch, H., 77 Turnus, 24-26, 53, 54
Paul, St., 47
Pickerimo. BoP S18 677 U
Ploss, E. E., 16
Pompey, 68, 70, 126 Ulrich von Eschenbach, 63
Porus, 74, 134, 135, 140
Prudentius, ei LOrl Busia 33) Vv
Sih oleh, 38, 40, 48, 51-56, 58, 163
Valerius, Julius, 75
Psalms, 9, 10
Venantius, Fortunatus, 30
Versil, 15 -3,.4; 6; 7,9) 12; 16; 19-
Q 31, 45, 47, 52-54, 64, 65, 74, 77,
91-93, 158
Quintilian, 2
virtus, 2, 5, 36, 41, 81-83, 85-87,
90, 101, 102, 105, 111-113, 117,
R 126, 128, 133, 139, 140, 143, 149,
151, 152, 161, 163, 164, 166
Raby, F. J. E., 63, 78, 80, 100
Reeh, R., 16, 17 WwW
Reinhold, M., 2
Robertson, D. W., Jr., 4 Wagner, H., 23
Ruodlieb, 1, 164 Waldere, 159
Walter of Aquitaine, 2, 12, 15, 19,
S 20, 22-25, 57, 58, 158-162, 164
Walter of Chatillon, 2, 5, 8, 12,
Schaller, D., 17 61-155 passim, 158, 160-166
Schmeller, A., 16 Welter, J., 135
Schumann, O., 16, 17, 18 William of Champagne, 62

— 171—
 i iat smaller
oe as fA>) ee
; ; BE preerrsee ©
3 sey m "aot TUTOR ME go ig eel
184 a,, eeNeal We aie
#" ne ee es eum. av tr el Sadaataeoes -.
tt J nev. Gantist Gr r 5 ot Exeter, . Me's he
| ‘—
f ; ap B® 5 :arAse
nt &. 4a.
eetS, wa
ESRe ee Tata hs3,1S
* bro ;
a + ame nM
-
Y Perse te os i ai: Pa «om .S

i
e f ls ue tak 14° +

m eee, ww Sebosd t y “ee a ny

Miho rah
ray t.t¢ rw f Asta. Seggemte
Si gaye s mS < q :
Us = | GEYS ce7h: 4 +. :
aa ‘er ae Rs an
Cur sender sagt provy giomsité, = re = ia .ie
Ce >
. ) Sey .-i, & ifs APY Ry pina
‘al
+ Frey iy ‘ @ ae
a ae it.
amt ‘
eV, @uttul, ayrmle'/ FAL Ae a AL 2 a =

ee
P _
eRe fm 8.
= ij sVEISy 2 —
oe telly Spe Es

ee
; f neie "96 Gul Ae, |
-

ony i ee oFsa tklt

; y ‘et “a ai.
Bi SS, ’ _ tom joe
pan ern * at, wW, a deasriedak~
; R2f sxghia yy : ; = ar “aiborh:
[7 UT A iy}rast 4 be a : “
P be : orale te, a al
ba * 5 ‘5 =

“poqy 32 colt
« 1, OF A colina
Bolt ar 0 aerate.

cere tee SN
SE TERMINO DE IMPRIMIR EN
LA CIUDAD DE MADRID EL DIA
10 DE JuNIO DE 1980.
 scuoia humanictactis:

Lourts MARCELLO LA Favia, Benvenuto Rambaldi da Imola:

Dantista. XII-188 pp. US $9.25.
JoHN O'Connor, Balzac’s Soluble Fish. XII-252 pp. US
$14.25.
Cartos Garcia, La desordenada codicia, edicién critica de
Giulio Massano. XII-220 pp. US $11.50.
EVERETT W. Hesse, Interpretando la Comedia. XII-184 pp.
US $10.00.
Nancy Dersori, Arcadia and the Stage: A Study of the
Theater of Angelo Beolco (called Ruzante). XII-180 pp.
US $10.00.
Lewis KaMM, The Object in Zola’s ROUGON-MACQUART.
XII-160 pp. US $9.25.
ANN BUGLIANI, Women and the Feminine Principle in the
Works of Paul Claudel. XII-144 pp. US $9.25.
CHARLOTTE FRANKEL GERRARD, Montherlant and Suicide.
XVI-72 pp. US $5.00.
The Two Hesperias. Literary Studies in Honor of Joseph
G. Fucilla. Edited by Americo Bugliani. XX-372 pp.
US $30.00.
JEAN J. SMoot, A Comparison of Plays by John M. Singe
and Federico Garcia Lorca: The Poets and Time.
XII-220 pp. US $13.00.
Laclos. Critical Approaches to Les Liaisons dangereuses.
Ed. Lloyd R. Free. XII-300 pp. US $17.00.
JULIA CONAWAY BONDANELLA, Petrarch’s Visions and their
Renaissance Analogues. XII-120 pp. US $7.00.
VINCENZO TrRiPopI, Studi su Foscolo e Stern. XII-216 pp.
US $13.00.
LOPE DE VEGA, El Amor enamorado, critical edition of John
B. Wooldridge, Jr. XII-236 pp. US $13.00.
JOHN A. Frey, The Aesthetics of the RouGON-MAcouART.
XVI-356 pp. US $20.00.
CHESTER W. OsucHowskI, Mars on Trial: War as Seen by
French Writers of the Twentieth Century. XVI1-320 pp.
US $20.00.
Mario Asts, La narrativa di Luigi Pirandello: Dalle novelle
al romanzo «Uno, Nessuno e Centomila». XVI-200 pp.
US $11.00.
MECHTHILD CRANSTON, Orion Resurgent: René Char, Poet
of Presence. XXIV-376 pp. US $22.50.
ANTONIO PLANELLS, Cortdzar: Metafisica y Erotismo. XVI-
220 pp. US $10.00.
Mary Lee Bretz, La evolucion novelistica de Pio Baroja.
VIII-476 pp. US $22.50.
Studies in Honor of Gerald E. Wade, edited by Sylvia
Bowman, Bruno M. Damiani, Janet W. Diaz, E. Michael
Gerli, Everett Hesse, John E. Keller, Luis Leal and
Russell Sebold. XII-244 pp. US $20.00.
Cancionero del Bachiller Jhoan Lopez, Manuscrito 3168
de la Biblioteca Nacional de Madrid. Edicion, estudio,
bibliografia e indices por Rosalind J. Gabin. Tomo pri-
mero: LVI-368 pp. US $30.00.
DENNIS M. Kratz, Mocking Epic. XVI-176 pp. $12.50.

EN PRENSA
Cancionero del Bachiller Jhoan Lopez, edicién critica de
Rosalind J. Gabin. Tomo segundo.
HeELMvuT HATZFELD, Essais sur la littérature flamboyante.
 DATE DUE

2)

oO < > a ° 4 a a ec z Q 2 >) n <

w
-
5ee
[m) [a] |
70