Confusion about the number of Bagoases

Discuss Alexander's generals, wives, lovers, family and enemies

Moderator: pothos moderators

Post Reply
Coral
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:05 am

Confusion about the number of Bagoases

Post by Coral »

Is there any modern consensus as to how many Bagoases existed in Alexander's court? There is Darius' and later, Alexander's favorite Bagoas, who he kissed after the dance at Karmania, and who played a role in Orxines' death. Then there is Bagoas who was the only Persian trierarch during the Indus voyage and at whose house Alexander dined in Ecbatana. I think Plutarch also mentions a Bagoas in a group of people who flatterered Alexander.

Are all these references to a single person? The first ATG biography I read was by R.L.Fox, and he implied that. But Hammond said that the two were different - the one at whose house Alexander dined was a "Lycian". Is "Lycian" mentioned anywhere in the sources?

Also, does Curtius' passage when Bagoas is first presented to Alexander, mean that Bagoas had to have been a slave ("gift")? As for the dance at Karmania, is it reasonable that a trierarch would be in a dance contest? I had assumed that well-born men - and even Kings - could enter dance contests, that "dancing" did not always mean the sort of dance by Bagoas shown in the film "Alexander"! Is this correct? Lastly, is it unreasonable that Alexander's "eromenos" Bagoas would rise in the ranks to become a trierarch, and have his own house, etc.?

Thanks for any help in resolving this confusion!
Callisto
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:14 pm

Post by Callisto »

Lets clear it up with a brief description of each one.

1. Bagoas the Egyptian Eunouch. He is famous for murdering Artaxerxes Ochus and Arses.

2. Bagoas the Persian Eunouch. He is the most famous one. Firstly he was said to have sexual relationship with Darius and later he became as you said a flatterer of Alexander.

3. Bagoas the Persian Trierarch. This one was son of Pharnuches. He was mentioned only in the Hydaspes fleet. However there are some objections whether the previous Bagoas and this one were in reality the same person.
ScottOden
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:12 pm
Location: Southern US
Contact:

Post by ScottOden »

Callisto wrote:1. Bagoas the Egyptian Eunouch. He is famous for murdering Artaxerxes Ochus and Arses.
Hi Callisto,

Interesting. I had no idea he was Egyptian. Is there a mention of his nationality in one of the sources? I had read somewhere, and for the life of me I can't recall where, that the name "Bagoas" wasn't a name at all but the Greek translation of the Persian word for "eunuch". I'll have to look around and see if I can find the source on that.

Jona Lendering's livius.org has a couple of good articles on the different Bagoases.

Best,

Scott
Coral
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:05 am

Post by Coral »

Callisto wrote:Lets clear it up with a brief description of each one.

1. Bagoas the Egyptian Eunouch. He is famous for murdering Artaxerxes Ochus and Arses.

2. Bagoas the Persian Eunouch. He is the most famous one. Firstly he was said to have sexual relationship with Darius and later he became as you said a flatterer of Alexander.

3. Bagoas the Persian Trierarch. This one was son of Pharnuches. He was mentioned only in the Hydaspes fleet. However there are some objections whether the previous Bagoas and this one were in reality the same person.
Yes, Number 1, King-maker/killer Bagoas was NOT at the court of Alexander; he was dead by then. I was not aware he was Egyptian. That is surprising - how did an Egyptian have such enormous influence at a Persian court?

My confusion stems from Numbers 2 and 3. From my quite limited readings so far, there seems to be some disagreement amongst historians as to whether 2 and 3 were separate people or not.
Callisto
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:14 pm

Post by Callisto »

ScottOden wrote:
Callisto wrote:1. Bagoas the Egyptian Eunouch. He is famous for murdering Artaxerxes Ochus and Arses.
Hi Callisto,

Interesting. I had no idea he was Egyptian. Is there a mention of his nationality in one of the sources? I had read somewhere, and for the life of me I can't recall where, that the name "Bagoas" wasn't a name at all but the Greek translation of the Persian word for "eunuch". I'll have to look around and see if I can find the source on that.

Jona Lendering's livius.org has a couple of good articles on the different Bagoases.

Best,

Scott
Hi Scott,

The source is Ael. Varia Historia 6.8.
Yes, Number 1, King-maker/killer Bagoas was NOT at the court of Alexander; he was dead by then. I was not aware he was Egyptian. That is surprising - how did an Egyptian have such enormous influence at a Persian court?

My confusion stems from Numbers 2 and 3. From my quite limited readings so far, there seems to be some disagreement amongst historians as to whether 2 and 3 were separate people or not.
Coral,

I am not sure if i should add to the list a fourth one. Mainly because i am uncertain about his original name, being Bogoas or Bagoas. In Elephantine papyri there is a mention of a Persian ruler of Judaea named Bogoas or Bagoas. This one is certainly not the Egyptian Bagoas since this one is supposed to be governor of Judaea about 424 BC in the reign of Darius II, a lot earlier before Bagoas of Artaxerxes time.

You are right. The misconception exists because of his patronymic. This has lead many to believe rightly or not, he is a different person.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Post by marcus »

Coral wrote:My confusion stems from Numbers 2 and 3. From my quite limited readings so far, there seems to be some disagreement amongst historians as to whether 2 and 3 were separate people or not.
Heckel, in his Who's Who (p.68 ) says:
Berve ii.98 rules out identification with the eunuch of the same name, but the possibility is not as remote as many would suggest.
Some other notes:
ScottOden wrote:Interesting. I had no idea he was Egyptian. Is there a mention of his nationality in one of the sources?
Aelian, Varia Historia, 6.8.

With regard to whether the eunuch Bagoases were slaves, Heckel also suggests that it is (as in Imperial China):
... not only possible but highly likely that not all eunuchs were captives or slaves but that families derived considerable benefit from handing their sons over to the Imperial service, even if it meant physical mutilation. (Who's Who, n.166, p/298 )
ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

marcus wrote:With regard to whether the eunuch Bagoases were slaves, Heckel also suggests that it is (as in Imperial China):
... not only possible but highly likely that not all eunuchs were captives or slaves but that families derived considerable benefit from handing their sons over to the Imperial service, even if it meant physical mutilation. (Who's Who, n.166, p/29
Though it may seem strange from a 21st century perspective, it does make some sense, especially if there were several sons in a family. It would have been preferable to keep any family fortune intact and the eldest would stand to inherit, so what became of younger sons in a period when the upper classes viewed a “trade” as an unsuitable occupation for their children? There was always regular Imperial service, but there’s still the issues of what would happen to them when they ‘retired’ and what their own sons would inherit. There would have been no problem, however, when a boy was handed over to be castrated and serve as a eunuch. Eunuchs had no children of their own and the King and court became their family, so to speak - plus they had the potential to achieve very high positions at court.

Afterthought: Isn’t this somewhat similar to the younger sons and daughters of mediaeval men leaving the family (or being sent) to join monasteries and convents? Except for the physical mutilation, of course.

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
ScottOden
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2003 7:12 pm
Location: Southern US
Contact:

Ramblings . . .

Post by ScottOden »

Well, I learn something new every day :)

Personally, I would have never imagined Bagoas the Kingmaker to be Egyptian, though now I'm curious as to what his true name was since 'Bagoas' isn't even remotely an Egyptian name (makes a case for it being the Greek version of the Persian word for 'eunuch', though).

I'm of the opinion, and this is just me speculating, that Bagoas may have had a hand in Mentor's death -- I think Diodorus remarked that Mentor was the only man Bagoas feared (don't quote me, though . . . it might have also been JM Cook in his 'Persian Empire'). Makes an odd sense, at least to me: they pair up in Egypt and run roughshod over the other Persian/Greek commanders, though their triumphs have more to do with Mentor's martial skill than much of anything Bagoas contributed (there's a story in Diodorus of how Mentor had to save Bagoas' bacon during the campaign); they earn accolades and high honors from Ochus; a couple years later Mentor dies and some time after Bagoas begins his none-to-subtle quest to be the power behind the throne. My feeling is he couldn't take the first step until Mentor either died or was disposed of.

I also wonder if it might have been Artabazus who let Darius III in on Bagoas' plan? If Mentor died of poisoning, followed some time later by members of the royal family, the old guy might have deduced who was behind it -- if it wasn't already common knowledge, of course.

Why couldn't the Persians have kept better records? ;)

Sorry for rambling . . .


Scott
Coral
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:05 am

Post by Coral »

ScottOden wrote:Jona Lendering's livius.org has a couple of good articles on the different Bagoases.
According to Jona Lendering, trierarch and "favorite" Bagoases were the same. I am getting the sense that one can pick whatever interpretation one is most comfortable with!
ScottOden wrote:Personally, I would have never imagined Bagoas the Kingmaker to be Egyptian, though now I'm curious as to what his true name was since 'Bagoas' isn't even remotely an Egyptian name (makes a case for it being the Greek version of the Persian word for 'eunuch', though)
Interestingly wikipedia states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagoas)
"A later story, that Bagoas was an Egyptian and killed Artaxerxes III because he had killed the sacred Apis (Aelian, Var. Hist. vi.), is without historical basis."

Not clear as to whether the Egyptian part or the sacred Apis part is "without basis." There is no reference for the "without basis".

If Kingmaker Bagoas was Egyptian, that seems added evidence that "Bagoas" was not a proper name. Perhaps a descriptive word. Greeks liked to add an "s" to the end of names they encountered elsewhere - so, if one dropped the s at the end, does that sound remotely like a Ancient Persian word? I know that in many modern Indian languages, the prefix be- (pronounced as in "bay") means without or anti, and this prefix is imported into Indian languages from Farsi (Parsi, Persian). There is actually a word in some Indian languages (again derived from Farsi), that is "begar"; it means "without".

If anyone is familiar with Persian, what is the word for "without"?

On another note, if "Bagoas" was a word for a eunuch, and not a birth name, then it seems odd that Alexander had a sexual relationship, dined, and voyaged on the Indus, with different people who were all eunuchs! Strange coincidence! :) Makes more sense to me that they were all the same person!
User avatar
amyntoros
Somatophylax
Posts: 2188
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 2:51 pm
Location: New York City

Post by amyntoros »

Coral wrote:If Kingmaker Bagoas was Egyptian, that seems added evidence that "Bagoas" was not a proper name. Perhaps a descriptive word.


I found a reference online. According to Isaac Asimov in his Guide to the Bible - Part Two, The New Testament:
Bagoas is the Greek form of a Persian name meaning "given by God" and was often used for eunuchs, so that the phrase "Bagoas the eunuch" was almost a cliche.
This common usage of the name might explain why people came to associate the word with eunuchs alone. They must have been renamed after the "surgery" (perhaps on arrival at the Persian court?) which is something I had not considered before - it would explain why an Egyptian ended up with a Persian name. I never quite believed that Bagoas literally meant eunuch in Greek, which is something I've also read. Writing Bagoas the eunuch would be the same as saying Eunuch the eunuch, wouldn't it? :wink:

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
Callisto
Pezhetairos (foot soldier)
Posts: 86
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:14 pm

Post by Callisto »

Firstly, the Egyptian Bagoas isnt the first recorded historical person, owner of this name in Persian empire. There is at least a notable Persian governor of Judaea in the reign of Darius II, apparently not being an eunouch.

The name Bagoas seems to have as its root the Persian word baga = ' God '. Baga is found in numerous Persian personal names like ie. the Persian names Bagaeus, Bagapates, etc.

The corresponding name to god in Sanscrit is "Bhaga" and the Sascrit adj 'Bhagwat' meaning "fortunate", resembles somehow what we know as 'Bagoas'.

Most likely the name Bagoas fits in the category of initial personal names that later were given a specific meaning from an attribute characterised one of its famous name owners.
Coral
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jun 14, 2006 12:05 am

Post by Coral »

amyntoros wrote:I found a reference online. According to Isaac Asimov in his Guide to the Bible - Part Two, The New Testament:
Bagoas is the Greek form of a Persian name meaning "given by God" and was often used for eunuchs, so that the phrase "Bagoas the eunuch" was almost a cliche.
THANK you! That makes a lot of sense, especially with Callisto's information too. Ignorant me - I never even knew that Asimov wrote a Guide to the Bible!
Callisto wrote:The name Bagoas seems to have as its root the Persian word baga = ' God '. Baga is found in numerous Persian personal names like ie. the Persian names Bagaeus, Bagapates, etc.

The corresponding name to god in Sanscrit is "Bhaga" and the Sascrit adj 'Bhagwat' meaning "fortunate", resembles somehow what we know as 'Bagoas'.

Most likely the name Bagoas fits in the category of initial personal names that later were given a specific meaning from an attribute characterised one of its famous name owners.
THANK you! It really is coming together for me now! I didn't know "Baga" meant God in Ancient Persian. One of the meanings of "Bhaga" in Sanskrit is God or good fortune, and Bhagwat is also a very common modern name as well as meaning God-like or gift from God. So in this regard Baga and Bhaga go back to shared Ancient Persian/Sanskrit word roots.

I am thinking that "Bagoas" was used for those made into eunuchs as a kind of euphemistic title; perhaps because they were no longer able to have family or children, they were sort of "dedicated" to God and to service to others. Once someone was made into an eunuch, he would have had a birth name and the name "Bagoas"; he might chose to drop one or keep both.
This does sound strangely similar to amyntoros's comment earlier about medieval people sending off sons and daughters into a monastic life.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Post by marcus »

Coral wrote:According to Jona Lendering, trierarch and "favorite" Bagoases were the same. I am getting the sense that one can pick whatever interpretation one is most comfortable with!
Well, to some extent that's true. I'm not totally familiar with the arguments either way; but it does indeed sound as if there's no definitive identification (or lack of identification). So, in effect, I suppose you're right. But you must be prepared for others to disagree! :)

ATB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
Post Reply