This episode is interesting for several reasons:
interpolation and contamination that must occur when so many redactions are being made, the early Romance traditions nevertheless at times remain surprisingly homogeneous. The 'Alexander Romance' represents a multi-cultural miscellany of quasi-fictitious and fictitious traditions on the travels, adventures and exploits of Alexander the Great.
The Alexander Romances ultimately derive from or are related to a Greek quasi-fabulous prose biography of Alexander which was once erroneously attributed in a manuscript to Alexander's official publicist, Callisthenes: the date of this work is controversial but most scholars place the earliest written version around 300 A.D.[[10]] There were evidently three main traditions or recensions derived from the original lost version, the so-called a text, and these three recensions subsequently formed the sources for all the other derivatives.[[11]] The Romances are attested in cultures as diverse as the Greco-Roman, medieval European and Islamic worlds and versions were made in Armenian, Pahlavi, Syriac Coptic, Ethiopic, Hebrew, Russian and even Malay and Siamese.[[12]]
Of some interest too is the Liber de Morte Alexandri, an account of Alexander's death, testament and burial. This text appears to have derived from a source also used by Pseudo-Callisthenes which Merkelbach argued went back to a political pamphlet in favour of Perdiccas' régime.[[13]] The Liber de Morte was contained in the same manuscript as the Metz Epitome, a historical narrative relating Alexander's Eastern campaigns from Hyrcania to India. Both these texts are evidently late compilations, but the relationship of one to the other is problematic.[[14]]
The evidence in general on Alexander's youth is scanty and since Plutarch is our main source we need to be cautious, since it suited his interests and his methodology to present the young Alexander with the characteristics of the adult. Yet despite its intrinsic romantic elements and Plutarch's elaboration, the story very likely had an early origin, possibly from an eyewitness.[[27]]
Although it does seem feasible that an adolescent Alexander may have ridden a horse which seemed intractable to everyone else, Plutarch's aims are only too evident. He emphasises these aspects of Alexander's personality which served him so well as a commander; firstly his courage and boldness[[28]]--not only in approaching Bucephalas, but in challenging Philip--and secondly his intelligence and observtion. Alexander realised that the horse was shying at its own shadow. This was not a case of Alexander 'breaking' Bucephalas in as a colt, or riding him for the first time; despite Philip's impression that the horse was agrios and akolastos (vicious and uneducated). According to Xenophon, (Peri Hippikes 2) the preliminary work of breaking the animal should be preferably carried out by someone else, since it was too time-consuming. Moreover, Plutarch's description (Alex. 6. 7-8) implies that the horse was used to the feel of a bridle and a rider and responded to command as soon as it had settled down.[[29]]
A figure of 13 talents seems an unbelievable amount for a horse, especially since war-horses would have a high mortality rate, but a king could be expected to pay handsomely for a well-trained and reliable mount. It does not seem improbable that Philip could have been offered a horse that was already some eight or ten years old; in modern terms, normally past its prime for flat-racing, but not for showjumping or dressage, where precision, experience and co-operation (the same qualities needed in a war-horse) count for more than sheet speed. Yet, even the best-schooled horses can be frightened or misbehave and Plutarch's explanation is as good as any; if it had not been for an ostentatious adolescent, the horse-dealer Philoneicus would have lost a sale.
Plutarch allows that some souces simply state that the horse died from wounds received in Alexander's battle against Porus, (Plut. Alex. 61, cf. Gellius NA 5. 2. 1-5). Yet Bucephalas' maturity may thus help explain Onesicritus' tradition on the circumstances and the horse's age at his death in 326 B.C. which although unequivocally accepted by Arrian,[[30]] has often been dismissed in modern times as romantic fabrication.[[31]]
We do not know how old Alexander was when he acquired Bucephalas, according to Pseudo-Callisthenes he was fourteen or fifteen (which sounds eminently reasonable) but since other sources also say that Bucephalas and Alexander were around the same age, scholars have had some difficulty accepting that the horse was as old as this when it was offered to Philip.[[32]] Peter Green, whose narrative of Alexander's mastery of Bucephalas is as colourful as Plutarch's, circumvented the problem by dropping Alexander's age to eight and thereby made him even more of a child prodigy.[[33]]
According to Onesicritus (Plut. Alex. 61.1) Bucephalas was 'thirty years old,' when he died which is an uncommon, but not unheard of life-span for a horse; in any case, above the age of eight, it is difficult to tell a horse's age accurately by its teeth. One also has to allow for a certain amount of exaggeration and Onesicritus was certainly not above stretching the truth; as his association with the king probably post-dated Alexander's youth, he very likely only knew what he had been told by others about Bucephalas' origin and far as he was concerned, the animal was clearly old at the time of its death, the king had had it a long time and it had not been ridden in battle by anyone other than Alexander. It may have seemed appropriate to make Bucephalas, as the steed fit for a king like Alexander, exceptional in everything, including longevity.
However, the same tradition was represented in the Ethiopic Alexander Romance with a further elaboration: the hero and his horse were not only the same age but conceived at exactly the same moment - and from the same agent. This variation was not present in either the Syriac or Greek Romances.[[34]] Of all the examples provided the Ethiopic text displays the most striking differences on the main theme; Bucephalas (whose name is not specified) has become a mare;[[35]] and Alexander decides to take the horse because Philip was thinking of sending him to Darius. But the story incorporates certain elements which also recall the tradition of Pseudo-Callisthenes; for instance, the animal is considered dangerous and is restrained, and Philip's exclamation is again in recognition of a prophecy.
Pseudo-Callisthenes (1. 17) endeavoured to stress the heroic and semi-divine aspects of Alexander's taming of Bucephalas and it is possible that he exploited original elements from other apsects of the king's career which he picked up from the Alexander tradition. The variants to the other sources on Bucephalas' origin are noticeable. Rather than being offered the horse as a purchase of gift,[[36]] Philip is presented with a colt bred on his own estates (Ps.-Call. 1. 13). The heroic attributes are first hinted in that the animal surpasses Pegasus in its beauty, and this is further reinforced by the Delphic oracle which tells Philip that the destined ruler of the world will be the one who rides Bucephalas, the horse with the mark of the ox's head on his haunch, (Ps.-Call. 1. 15).[[37]]
The most remarkable transformation is that Bucephalas has become a literal man-eater (anthropophagos) instead of a simply unmanageable horse. Horses which either eat flesh or tear people apart have a long tradition in general, from the meat-eating mares which rip their owner, Glaukos, asunder to the wild horses that destroy Lycurgus of Thrace in Aeschylus' lost Edoni.[[38]] There may have been a rational basis for the myth; although horses naturally are not carnivorous, they are certainly capable of savaging other animals or humans with their teeth. Stallions in particular are notorious for biting their handlers from time to time; indeed Xenophon recommends muzzling a horse (Peri Hippikes 5. 3) and allows that castration is a permanent solution to the problem (Cyropaedia 7. 5. 60 f.).
However, in Pseudo-Callisthenes the Heraclean associations are only too apparent; in case we should miss the symbolism of Bucephalas as a man-eater and hence his link with the flesh-eating horses of Diomedes, Pseudo-Callisthenes indicated earlier (1. 15) that Philip was awaiting a second Heracles. The Heraclean links are even more prominent in the Armenian variant (Arm. Ps.-Call. 31, cf. Jul. Val. 1. 13); the new born colt surpasses Pegasus and Arion (Heracles' horse) and when Alexander attempts to ride the animal he 'trusts in his ancestry' and subdues the horse by strength rather than luck. The Heracles motif does not feature in the Ethiopic derivative: Pseudo-Callisthenes' exploitation of the Heraclean theme is fairly consistent in the narrative and may have been out of literary considerations and the author's general exposure to Hellenic culture. But as Alexander's imitatio of Heracles was also amply attested in both historical accounts and in iconography, the Heraclean connotations are perhaps not so surprising.[[39]]
Likewise, given the alleged divine aspirations of the historical Alexander,[[40]] as well as the quasi-divine story of his conception in Pseudo-Callisthenes and the oracle about Bucephalas, the god-like element associated with the horse's taming is inevitable. Pseudo-Callisthenes simply turned the mastery of Bucephalas into part of the prophecy relating to Alexander's divinely sanctioned greatness.
Pseudo-Callisthenes' source or sources are difficult to determine. He clearly took not only the theme of the story from an earlier tradition but details like Bucephalas' brand - which occur elsewhere in the historical accounts. Also intriguing is the inclusion of Ptolemy's title as Soter, represented in Kroll's edition, the Armenian and the Latin version of Julius Valerius, which perhaps points to a Hellenistic Alexandrian origin of the Romance; certainly an erroneous story of how Ptolemy earned the title was still widely known in the 2nd century AD.[[41]] Finally Philip's delight at Alexander's success appears in all the accounts; the main variation between Plutarch and the Romance is that in the former Philip urges Alexander to look for another kingdom, whereas in the latter, the king realises that one part of the prophecy about his son has been fulfilled.
Philip's anachronistic remark may have even come from the first generation
of Alexander historians, since the eyewitness sources (with the exception
of Callisthenes) wrote after Alexander's death and were all subject to
varying degrees to exaggeration. The king's comment may not have necessarily
been a late addition, but its appeal, as the fitting conclusion to a charming
story was undeniable.
2 W. Kroll edited the earliest version of Pseudo-Callisthenes, Historia Alexandria Magni (Berlin, 1926, repr. 1958) based on the 'A' MS, dated to the third century AD which was heavily corrupt and in need of supplementation. See also Karl Müller, Fragmenta Scriptorum de Rebus Alexandri Magni, Pseudo-Callisthenes, Itinerarium Alexandri (Paris, 1846, repr. Chicago, 1979). For the translation of the 5th cent. AD Armenian version, see Albert M. Wolohojian, The Romance of Alexander the Great by Pseudo-Callisthenes (Columbia University, 1969) and for the twelfth-century Persian Alexander Romance, see Minoo S. Southgate, Iskandarnamah (Columbia University, 1978); for the Ethiopic and Syriac versions, see Sir Ernest A. Wallis Budge, The Alexander Book in Ethiopia (Oxford, 1933) and his earlier The History of Alexander, being the Syriac Version of the Pseudo-Callisthenes (Cambridge, 1889) and The Life and Exploits of Alexander the Great, text and translation, 2 vols. (1896, repr. Benjamin Blom, 1968).
3 Scholarly criticism on the sources and evolution of Pseudo-Callisthenes is vast and controversial. For earlier bibliographical references, see J. Seibert, Alexander der Grosse (Darmstadt, 1972), 219-227, also George Cary's remarkable study, The Medieval Alexander edit., D. J. A. Ross (Cambridge, 1956, repr. 1967), hereafter Cary. For a collection of Friedrich Pfister's substantial contributions, see Kleine Schriften zum Alexanderroman (Meisenheim am Glan, 1976) for alternative listings see Cary 389, Seibert, Alexander 226-227. A major work for any study on the Romance traditions is Reinhold Merkelbach, Die Quellen des griechischen Alexanderromans (Munich, 1954, 2nd edition 1977), hereafter 'Merkelbach'; see also Helmut van Thiel, Leben und Taten Alexanders von Makedonien; der griechische Alexanderroman nach der Handschrift L Darmstadt, 1974, repr. 1983). David J. A. Ross' research on the Alexanderromance especially in medieval literature and iconography is also worth noting; see Alexander Historiatus: A Guide to medieval illustrated Alexander literature, (Athenäums Monografien Altertumswissenschaft, 1988) and a bibliography of his publications (to 1982) is provided in The Medieval Alexander Legend and Romance Epic, edd. Peter Noble, Lucie Polak and Claire Isoz (Kraus International Publications, 1982) xi-xvii. For a recent, concise survey of the area, see Richard Stoneman, 'The Alexander Romance: From History to Fiction' in Greek Fiction The Greek Novel in Context, edd. J. R. Morgan and R. Stoneman (London, 1994), 117-129.
4 Peter Green, Alexander of Macedon (Harmondsworth, 1974), 479.
5 See John Andrew Boyle, 'The Alexander Romance in the East and West', Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester 60. 1 (1977), 13-27, esp. 27.
6 Both of these illustrations were very popular medieval motifs; see Ross, Alexander Historiatus 2, 38-41, on the griffin flying chariot, see also G. Millet, 'L'ascension d'Alexandre', Syria 4 (1923), 85-133.
7 See Carlos Garcia Gual, 'Éléments mythiques et biographie romanesque: la Vie d'Alexandre du Pseudo-Callisthène', in Métamorphoses du mythe en Grèce Antique, ed. Claude Calame (Genève, 1988), 130, '... il descend scruter les fonds marins avec un dispositif ingénieux, comme un précurseur du commandant Cousteau ....'
8 See Ross, Alexander Historiatus 5; cf. Merkelbach (1954), 56 and 121-51.
9 See Richard Stoneman, The Greek Alexander Romance (Harmondsworth, 1991), 23.
10 See Cary 9; other manuscripts attribute the work to Ptolemy or Aesop; see F. Pfister, Kleine Schriften 17-52, esp. 42-44. On the imperial date (c. 300 AD) for the work's present form see W. Kroll, Historia Alexandri Magni, xv, supported by Merkelbach 59, Ross, Alexander Historiatus 84, n.7. See also Beverly Berg, 'An Early Source of the Alexander Romance', GRBS (1973), 382, n.2.
11 A concise explanation in Richard Stoneman's note, The Greek Alexander Romance (Harmondsworth, 1991), 28-32; for more comprehensive studies, see above, n.2.
12 Budge, The Alexander Book in Ethiopia, xvii f. lists the best known versions.
13 See Merkelbach (1977), 164-92, 253-83; cf. A. B. Bosworth, 'The Death of Alexander the Great: Rumour and Propaganda', CQ 21 (1971), 112-36 and the excellent survey of the problem in W. Heckel, The Last Days and Testament of Alexander the Great (Stuttgart, 1988), 1-5.
14 F. Pfister (see above, n.9) argued that the Liber de Morte was an independent tract, cf. Heckel, Last Days 1; but see L. Ruggini, 'L'Epitoma rerum gestarum Alexandri Magni et il Liber de Morte Testamentoque Eius', Athenaeum 39 (1961), 285-357, who suggests both texts whilst different genres, may have been transcribed by the other author.
15 Merkelbach identified some four separate traditions; a historical biography in the tradition of Cleitarchus, a collection of letters, possibly partly derived from an Epistolary Romance of Alexander and partly from an group of letters describing Alexander's Eastern adventures, thirdly a source relating Alexander's meeting with the Gymnosophistae, which survives elsewhere in papyrus fragments and finally the propagandist pamphlet on Alexander's death and testament. For an alternative view, see A. Ausfeld, Der griechische Alexanderroman (Leipzig, 1907), 251-52 and Pfister (above n.9), who argued that the extant text of Pseudo-Callisthenes was largely derived from an earlier Romance which they dated to c. 200 BC. Aspects of Merkelbach's analysis have been challenged, for instance, see Beverly Berg (above, n.10), 381-7 but overall his views have probably been the most influential, so Ross, Alexander Historiatus, 84, n. 3, cf. T. Hägg, The Novel in Antiquity (Berkeley, 1980), 125 and L. L. Gunderson, 'Early Elements in the Alexander Romance', in Ancient Macedonia, edd. B. Laourdas and Ch. Makaronas (Thessaloniki, 1970), 353-75.
16 See Stoneman, Greek Alexander Romance 18; for Candace Ps.-Call. 3. 18 f. In the Ethiopic version, see Budge, The Alexander Book in Ethiopia 123, Alexander actually sleeps with the Queen, a detail absent from the Greek text.
17 See Berg's summary ('Early Source', 383 f.).
18 See Southgate, Iskandarnamah 5, also his useful appendices on Alexander in Persian, Pahlavi, and Islamic Arabic/Persian traditions 167 f. According to Southgate, 168-69, Firdawsi's Shahnamah (Book of Kings c. 1010 AD) is the most faithful redaction of the lost d text, corresponding for the most part to the Syriac version.
19 See Southgate, Iskandarnamah 186-89.
20 See David Henige, Oral Historiography (Longman, 1982), 88. One may compare a similar example in Herodotus (3. 2); the Egyptians claim kinship with the house of Cyrus by making Cambyses Egyptian.
21 Gilgamesh, see Bruno Meissner, Alexander and Gilgamos (Leipzig, 1884); Budge, Alexander Book in Ethiopia, xxviii; 'The Stinking Sea', 131 f., also n.1. See also Richard Stoneman, 'Oriental Motifs in the Alexander Romance', Antichthon 26 (1992), 85-113.
22 Ps.-Call. 1. 29-30; cf. Arrian Anab. 7. 15. 4-6 and Pliny NH 3. 57; see A. B. Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander (Oxford, 1988), 83-93 who affirms the historicity of the episode and concludes it was part of the early tradition via Cleitarchus.
23 Antipater's support Ps.-Call. 1. 26; Alexander's crowing at Memphis; 1. 34. On the latter, see L. Koenen, Eine agonistische Inschrift aus Ägypten und frühptolemäische Königsfeste, Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie 56 (Meisenheim am Glan, 30-31). See, however, S. M. Burstein, 'Pharaoh Alexander: A Scholarly Myth', Anc. Soc. 22 (1991), 139-45; also Andrew Stewart, Faces of Power: Alexander's Image and Hellenistic Politics (Berkeley, 1993), 174.
24 On the foundation of Alexandria, see Alan E. Samuel, 'The Earliest Elements in the Alexander Romance,' Historia 35 (1986), 429; R. S. Bagnall, 'The Date of the Foundation of Alexandria', AJAH 4 (1979), 46-49.
25 Cf. Plut. Alex. 3. 5, who says Alexander covered Darius' body with his cloak; the detail is also in Ps.-Call. 2. 20, although the king is still alive at the time.
26 See Bosworth, From Arrian to Alexander 75 f. on Arrian's critique of historical error in general.
27 A full treatment of Bucephalas and the traditions associated with him is A. R. Anderson's, 'Bucephalas and his legend', AJP 51 (1930), 1-21; see also H. Berve, Das Alexanderreich auf prosopographischer Grundlage ii (Munich, 1926), no. 253, p. 33, J. R. Hamilton, Plutarch, Alexander: A Commentary (Oxford, 1969), 14-16; the source for the story may have been Chares, see Jacoby, FGrH 125 F18 and note; cf. J. Hamilton, 'Alexander's Early Life', G&R 12 (1965), 117-24, 118, n.2, more recently, N. G. L. Hammond, Sources For Alexander: an analysis of Plutarch's Life and Arrian's Anabasis Alexandrou (Cambridge, 1993), 23 f. suggests that the story may have ultimately derived from Marsyas of Macedon.
28 The Greek suggests (Plut. Alex. 6. 2) that Alexander is quite arrogant; he says outright that Philip's grooms are weak and do not know what they are doing '.... DI) A)PEI/RIAN KAI\ MALAKI/AN ....'
29 Arrian's statement (Anab. 5. 19. 5) that Bucephalas had 'never been mounted by anyone but Alexnder' does not necessarily support the view that Alexander 'broke' the horse; cf. Pliny, NH 8. 154, also Gellius, NA 5. 2. 1-5 (= FGrH 125 F 18) who says that when he was fitted out with royal trappings Bucephalas tolerated only Alexander on his back; otherwise others could ride him. In any case, a horse which tolerated only one rider would be a nuisance on campaign.
30 Arr. Anab. 5. 14. 4, cf. 5. 19. 5-6. Arrian rejects the alternative version that Bucephalas died in the battle, wounded by Porus' son. He does not name Onesicritus as his source at 5. 19. 5-6 which gives Bucephalas' age as 'about thirty.' Other traditions, cf. Diod. 17. 95. 5, Metz Epit. 62, and possibly Curt. 9. 14. 34, also record the horse's death in battle. Whilst Arrian may have realised on a pragmatic level that Alexander would be using a younger mount by 326, one also wonders if Arrian's personal fondness for animals (see A. B. Bosworth, 'Arrian and Rome: The Minor Works', ANRW 34. 1 [1993], 226-75) may have motivated him to accept Onesicritus' evidence; perhaps he did not like to think that the king would have subjected his elderly and beloved horse to yet another fight. Ps.-Call. (3. 3) and the Syriac and Ethiopic derivatives depict Bucephalas collapsing in the battle against Porus; but in the former, (Ps.-Call. 3. 33) Bucephalas has a final appearance; he identifies and tears to pieces the slave who prepared the poison used on Alexander and then dies.
31 See Hammond, Sources for Alexander 23 and Anderson, 'Bucephalas', 11 f.
32 This would mean that Bucephalas was a veteran of twenty when Alexander became king which does seem unlikely; but if I may again point to some modern exempla; aged horses have regularly won the Grand National and the three horses ridden to victory by Australasian Olympic horsemen, Keven Bacon (1968), Mark Todd (1984) and Matthew Ryan (1992), were reputedly all between 16 to 18. According to Plut. Alex. 32. 12, Bucephalas was considered past his prime by 331, but although Alexander used younger horses for daily activities, he was still riding him into battle. I have no difficulty accepting that the horse may have been 14 or 16 when Alexander set out on his Persian expedition and that it was between 24-26 at its death.
33 See Green, Alexander of Macedon 43 f. Green also neatly reconciles the variant tradition on Bucephalas' origin, cf. Diod. 17. 76. 6; he accepts Chares' detail that the horse was a gift to Philip and suggests that it was Demaratus of Corinth who bought the animal from Philoneicus and gave it to Alexander. On Diodorus' tradition, see Anderson, 'Bucephalas', 12, n.9.
34 See Budge, Alexander Book in Ethiopia 9, also The Life and Exploits of Alexander the Great 18, who considers it an interpolation by an Oriental. But the detail also appears in Firdawsi's 11th cent. AD Persian Shahnamah, see Theodor Nöldeke, 'Beiträge zur Geschichte des Alexanderromans', Denkschriften der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, XXXVII (1890), 50.
35 The change in the horse's gender seems odd; mares are certainly prized by Arabic peoples, see Budge, Alexander Book in Ethiopia 20, n.1, but not necessarily more than stallions. See also Anderson, 'Bucephalas', 15 f.
36 See Anderson, 'Bucephalas', 8 f. on the horse's origin.
37 'Boos kephale;' on the significance of the name see Anderson, 'Bucephalas', 3 f.; in the Syrian version, the mark is a wolf with an ox in its mouth. See also A. B. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander, ii (Oxford, 1995), 314; the literary evidence which supports the idea of the mark as a brand is supplemented by Athenian archive lead tablets recording about 25 brand names, including Bucephalas, cf. J. H. Kroll, 'An Archive of the Athenian Cavalry', Hesperia 46 (1977), 86-8, 138; contra K. Braun, 'Der Dipylon-Brunnen b: Die Funde', Ath. Mitt. 85 (1970), 251-67.
38 Glaukos was the hero of a lost play of Aeschylus by the same name; he was punished for not allowing his mares to mate with Aphrodite's stallions. See A. J. Podlecki, The Political Background of Aeschylean Tragedy (Michigan, 1966), 148 f. On Lycurgus, see M. Détienne, Dionysus at Large (Harvard, 1989), 13 f. plus references.
39 The Argead house traced its descent from Temenus, the Heraclid conqueror of Argos, cf. Hdt. 8. 137, Thuc. 2. 99, 5. 80. Alexander's imitatio of his ancestor is notable and may have been genuine, rather than simply the propaganda of his successors; two well known examples are his visit to Siwah because Heracles and Perseus went there, see Arrian, Anab., 3. 3. 2-3, see also A. B. Bosworth, A Historical Commentary on Arrian's History of Alexander i (Oxford, 1980), 269-70 and his desire to take Aornus because Heracles had been unable to capture it, see Arr. Anab. 4. 28, cf. 30. 4; Diod. 17. 85. 2; Curt. 8. 11. 2; Metz Epit. 46. See also P. A. Brunt, Arrian i (Loeb, Cambridge, Mass., 1976), App. IV, 464 f. In sculpture, Alexander is sometimes depicted in a lion's skin cap as he is on the Alexander Sarcophagus in Istanbul, on which (and Alexander iconography in general) see Stewart's impressive Faces of Power. There are other examples; one in Boston of a marble bust dated to the 4th cent. from Sparta, No. 521741 and another from the Kerameikos, now in Athens National Museum, Cat. No. 366 dated to the 3rd cent. BC.
40 Alexander's divine aspirations are too vast to document here; a comprehensive study is E. Badian, 'The Deification of Alexander the Great', in Ancient Macedonian Studies in Honor of Charles F. Edson, ed. H. J. Dell (Thessaloniki, 1981), 27-71; a recent treatment is G. L. Cawkwell, 'The Deification of Alexander the Great: A Note', in Ventures Into Greek History, ed. Ian Worthington (Oxford, 1994), 293-306.