A Hephaistion Quiz!

[karen]

Perhaps not proof, but very convincing evidence in my mind. You're a smart person, Marcus... ever gone on a date with someone who really has nothing in her head? Would you marry her, and sentence yourself to limiting yourself to talking only about what she understands in all conversations with the closest person to you for the rest of your life?

Now you could argue, I suppose, that if Hephaistion really was stupid, Alexander could have been attached to him just as a fawning sycophant, a source of slavish attention. But in that case, he'd never have allowed Hephaistion to dress as lavishly as he himself did -- enough to be mistaken for the king by Sisygambis, or to prompt one of the ancient sources to remark that Hephaistion was just as brightly-bedecked as Alexander during one of the battles (I can look it up if need be). I don't think he'd have let Hephaistion read letters from his mother if he didn't plan to talk about them with him -- and those would have been not just personal, but political conversations. To discourse with Alexander in those, one would have to be of above-average intelligence, I would think.

As far as the matter of commands goes, Hephaistion was a similar age to Alexander, and my guess is that his rise through the ranks happened at more or less the same speed as anyone's -- no high commands at first, because he simply didn't have the experience, then a gradual increase in responsibility as he learned. In all those victories there wasn't a lot of officer attrition, which means not a lot of upward mobility for the new guys; note that Hephaistion became co-commander of the Horse Companions due to his predecessor being killed not in battle, but through being found guilty of treason. And through the same situation Alexander managed to squeeze in a long-due promotion for Kleitos also. Perhaps the term sometimes used -- baby-sitting -- is apt without being truly derogatory, in that Hephaistion was very young for the post, and need training like anyone else young. The only fair measure of how fast he rose would be to compare it to other horsemen of the same age, not counting Alexander, during the same campaign. I don't think his detractors have done that.

Warmly,
Karen

[marcus]

Perhaps not proof, but very convincing evidence in my mind. You're a smart person, Marcus... ever gone on a date with someone who really has nothing in her head? Would you marry her, and sentence yourself to limiting yourself to talking only about what she understands in all conversations with the closest person to you for the rest of your life?

You are very kind, Karen. (a blush)

Yes, I have been on a date with a vaccuum flask and I don't disagree with your analysis in the slightest. However, while it is very convincing evidence, it ain't proof - one simply cannot say "Alexander was smart and would not have been such a good friend to someone who was stupid; ergo Hephaistion was not stupid." We don't know enough about them and their relationship to make those sorts of statements.

Still, this is rather a silly conversation, because surely none of us believe that Hephaistion was stupid, and we all disagree with whoever it was who said he was (I'm confused now). There is plenty of evidence that he was no idiot without creating false syllogisms and applying Occam's Razor to an unsubstantiated facet of their relationship of which we know almost no details at all. Better that we stick to the convincing evidence we do have, surely, to refute those who wish to impugn Hephaistion's brainpower ...

I always laugh when I remember a conversation with two sisters one year when I was on holiday. They were both stunning blondes but, contrary to popular myth and tawdry jokes, one of them at least was pretty smart. "We call her 40 watt," declared one sister of the other, "because she's a bit dim." The inane giggle given at that by said "40 watt" sister did, unfortunately, suggest that she wasn't in the middle of reading Proust at the time ...

ATB

[Fiona]

Fiona, I must take issue with a couple of things.

Absolutely, and there's Karen's point too about brilliant people being bored by stupid people. Alexander wasn't stupid, ergo, Hephaistion wasn't stupid.

Way too simplistic. While what Karen said was fair enough as a generalisation, to use it as "proof" that Hephaistion wasn't stupid takes no account of the myriad convolutions of character and personality. That won't wash, I'm afraid.

(Not that Hephaistion was stupid - but you can't use that as an argument.)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be simplistic, just brief. I should have explained what I meant a bit better. I do agree that there are all kinds of combinations of human character and personality, and it's not impossible to think of examples of brilliant people having relationships with stupid people. It often happens when the stupid party is valued for his or her decorative qualities. If we didn't know anything about Alexander and Hephaistion's relationship, then Alexander's brilliance would be no proof at all of Hephaistion's intellect. But I was assuming, you see, that we'd agree that we did know enough about their relationship. It was lifelong, it was closer than any other, and Hephaistion was the confidant of Alexander's secrets. And so, because it's impossible to think of a brilliant person having a relationship like that with a stupid person, then I would contend that is indeed proof, so far as anything about human nature can be proved. It's not scientific proof. It's more the 'If it walks like a duck' variety.
I do agree it's a bit of a silly argument, when no-one but Peter Green is saying that Hephaistion was stupid, but I thought the point about the nature of proof was worth discussing.

In defence of Paul Cartledge, though, I am very sure he was using 'dumb' in its literal, UK English sense of 'silent' - in the UK, the word carries no connotations of stupidity, as it does in the US.

Oh yes it most absolutely does.

Only insofar as people are aware of the American meaning, don't you think? Still, maybe I should have said 'quite the same connotation'. I'll amend it to that. I certainly can't think of anyone I know who would use the word with that meaning, but that may because where I come from, we say 'daft'.
I think it's worth pointing out that the word 'dumb' when used by a Cambridge professor, doesn't automatically mean 'stupid'.
Fiona

[marcus]

But I was assuming, you see, that we'd agree that we did know enough about their relationship. It was lifelong, it was closer than any other, and Hephaistion was the confidant of Alexander's secrets.

Yes, because Alexander could trust Hephaistion to be so stupid that he'd never remember what Olympias had written in her letters and so blurt it out to everyone else ... (Joke - but you see where I'm coming from?)

I do agree it's a bit of a silly argument, when no-one but Peter Green is saying that Hephaistion was stupid, but I thought the point about the nature of proof was worth discussing.

It's only a silly argument because none of us are actually arguing about whether Hephaistion had brains or not - we all agree that he did. But the nature of proof is an interesting one - and I like your "walks like a duck" analogy, because that is all too true.

In defence of Paul Cartledge, though, I am very sure he was using 'dumb' in its literal, UK English sense of 'silent' - in the UK, the word carries no connotations of stupidity, as it does in the US.

Oh yes it most absolutely does.

Only insofar as people are aware of the American meaning, don't you think?

No.

Seriously, most people I know, if they use the word "dumb", mean "stupid". Perhaps it's a Sarf London thing ...

I certainly can't think of anyone I know who would use the word with that meaning, but that may because where I come from, we say 'daft'.

Are you north of Watford?

I think it's worth pointing out that the word 'dumb' when used by a Cambridge professor, doesn't automatically mean 'stupid'.

That's true (although I'm not sure that Cartledge being a Cambridge professor actually makes any difference to semantic exactitude); although in the context it was the only meaning he could have intended. At the end of the day, it was Cartledge trying to be flippant - whether or not it worked is down to the individual reader, I suppose!

Apologies if I've been making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill here - I seem to be getting more pedantic and crotchety with the passing of every day ...

ATB

[Paralus]

Dumb means dumb. Yes there is, of course, the "deaf and dumb" meaning but in Oz, dumb used in the context of the book is a "dill".

[Fiona]

Are you north of Watford?

Certainly am - Manchester.
I liked your joke, and yes, it's a fair point.
And I do agree about Cartledge being flippant!
Cheers,
Fiona

[marcus]

Are you north of Watford?

Certainly am - Manchester.

Thought so - the only people I know who use "daft" nowadays are in the Midlands or North. When I'm in Nottingham (which I am quite a lot) I say the same, but I never do when I'm in London. (To be fair, I personally don't use "dumb" often - "Special Educational Needs" is what we tend to say ... )

ATB

[Sandra]

but Philotas was one of those educated with Aristotle and there is Pixodarus affair as well... I doubt Philip would involve in such situation someone who is close friend of Amyntas. So- I am not sure, he was closer friend to Amynta than Alexander.

I don't think we have any evidence that Philotas was educated by Aristotle with Alexander. In fact, if memory serves me correctly, none of the sources tell us who was educated with Alexander - we can only make some assumptions and (very reasonable) guesses. But it has been suggested that Philotas wasn't in Alexander's "class", being a few years older - that's where the whole point about his probably being closer to Amyntas comes about.

Anyway, I don't see what Amyntas has to do with Philip's taking Philotas along when he confronts Alexander over Pixodarus. Two possibilities have always been suggested: first, that it was Philotas who gave the game away to Philip, in which case Philip wanted Philotas there to prevent Alexander from trying to lie his way out of it; and second, that Philotas was taken along to remind Alexander how a dutiful son should behave. Whether or not Philotas was a friend of Amyntas has nothing to do with it.

ATB

I think it has to do something- we do not know- how Philip regarded Amyntas- and if not very good- why he should take a friend of his with him- for his family issues?
Perhaps- for clarification we should start new discussion on this point? As new topic. This has very little to do with Hepahistion quiz:)