Hephaestion's Relief

[amyntoros]

Hi Amyntoros,

Do you mean this to be a semantic point or do you know of some reason why the shrine and this sculpture had to be commissioned separately?

What semantics Andrew? It's a votive relief, of which many have been found in a similar style all over Greece. As Hephaistion was honored as a hero you might want to read Greek Votives and start at THE DEAD, THE HEROES, AND CHTHONIAN DEITIES. Of course there's no reason why the shrine and this sculpture had to be commissioned separately - and there's no reason why they couldn't have been. And considering that this particular votive is of a modest kind, it is hardly fitting for a king who ordered the construction of the most amazingly expensive funeral pyre/temple for his Hephaistion. Your theory begs the question why Alexander would have wanted to honor Hephaistion in Pella with such a humble offering. I'll say this though, if it was ordered by Alexander it's not something on which he would have wanted to put his real name, of which he was exceedingly proud.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

...considering that this particular votive is of a modest kind, it is hardly fitting for a king who ordered the construction of the most amazingly expensive funeral pyre/temple for his Hephaistion. Your theory begs the question why Alexander would have wanted to honor Hephaistion in Pella with such a humble offering. I'll say this though, if it was ordered by Alexander it's not something on which he would have wanted to put his real name, of which he was exceedingly proud.

Alexander commissioned and allowed his name to be used on sculptures on all physical scales. For instance, his copious coins all bore his name or monogram. There are many minor shrines commissioned in his name too, such as the one at Luxor. The one he didn't allow was the largest (Mt Athos) rather than the smallest. I have also already written:

As for the size, the commissioner must have been fairly prominent and wealthy to afford a high quality sculpture on this scale at all. However, there is no limitation from its size on how wealthy or prominent he was for several reasons. Firstly, Diodorus dates Alexander's instruction that all should sacrifice to Hephaistion to the time of the funeral in Babylon. Alexander himself died about a month later. Even if Alexander had ordered highly elaborate shrines, it is very likely that those plans would have been scaled back considerably, when he died. Secondly, the fact that the shrine was only to a hero rather than a god imposes a constraint on its size, because it would have been offensive to decorum for the shrine of a hero to be larger than the shrines of the gods (Hypereides says something along these lines btw.)

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

As for the size, the commissioner must have been fairly prominent and wealthy to afford a high quality sculpture on this scale at all. However, there is no limitation from its size on how wealthy or prominent he was for several reasons. Firstly, Diodorus dates Alexander's instruction that all should sacrifice to Hephaistion to the time of the funeral in Babylon. Alexander himself died about a month later. Even if Alexander had ordered highly elaborate shrines, it is very likely that those plans would have been scaled back considerably, when he died. Secondly, the fact that the shrine was only to a hero rather than a god imposes a constraint on its size, because it would have been offensive to decorum for the shrine of a hero to be larger than the shrines of the gods (Hypereides says something along these lines btw.)

There's a difference between commissioning shrines and comanding worship which means he may or may not have paid for the shrine at Pella. Even if he had commissioned the shrine at Pella - and I have no idea of the size or scope of the place but maybe system1988 can advise - it doesn't mean that he commissioned this modest votive relief also, and under an assumed name, no less. I'll say again, votive offerings were placed at shrines by any number of believers, and as for "As for the size, the commissioner must have been fairly prominent and wealthy to afford a high quality sculpture on this scale at all", system 1988 has already said "Thus we come to the conclusive thought that the artifact in question must be the dedication of a commoner who paid a mid- ranged sum of money."

Best regards,

[athenas owl]

Before the scholarly debate really gets going I have a sort of connected question. Strabo mentions a temple, a Hephaistion, on the island of Pharos at Alexandria. I'm recalling from memory here and would gladly be corrected. Was this a temple to Hephaistos/Ptah or could it have been the temple of Hephaistion himself? And now I wonder, what a temple dedicated to Hephaistion be called? The Hephastionion?...forgive I think I have heat stroke, just returned from 99 degree (37 + celsius) weather inland with a 40 degree drop. I'm rather discombobulated.

Anywhere, carry on...a most interesting discussion.

And thank you system1988 for the description.

[Alexias]

Before the scholarly debate really gets going I have a sort of connected question. Strabo mentions a temple, a Hephaistion, on the island of Pharos at Alexandria. I'm recalling from memory here and would gladly be corrected. Was this a temple to Hephaistos/Ptah or could it have been the temple of Hephaistion himself? And now I wonder, what a temple dedicated to Hephaistion be called? The Hephastionion?...forgive I think I have heat stroke, just returned from 99 degree (37 + celsius) weather inland with a 40 degree drop. I'm rather discombobulated.

Anywhere, carry on...a most interesting discussion.

And thank you system1988 for the description.

Athenas owl, the temple of Hephaestion was about the earliest of the Macedonian buildings (there were some bronze age Egyptian buildings) on the island of Pharos. Could I point you here http://megalexandros.livejournal.com/61806.html

And I have to say that I can't see that Alexander would have commissioned such a meagre momument to Hephaestion in his home town.

System1988, do we know whereabouts the relief was discovered in Pella? If it was discovered in the centre of the city or a prominent position, that might argue for a kingly doner. The idea that it might have been Cassander is interesting, though I am unsure why he would have made the dedication. Might a better candidate have been Antipater, acting in the name of the king, hence why he did not use his own name?

[system1988]

I think that Agesilaos and Amyntoros covered with their posts most of what I would like to add or argue and I am thankful to them . By the way you are welcome athenas owl! Thanks for viewing my post!

I would like to answer to Amyntoros: It is certain that Alexander would have built, had he lived longer, a luxurious place of worship, for Hephaestion, in Pella - not a simple shrine.

The excavations have yet to uncover such a temple or its remains. However we can say for sure that there was a place for his worship due to the fact that it is proven by th relief's form. It would have been a cave with an altar or a Hephaestion statue (or even a wooden painting of him); the cave could have been full of worship reliefs or other gifts in his honor. And of course Alexander would not have dedicated a minor monument like a modest relief to his beloved friend. A friend for whose funeral he paid 12 000 talanta! Alexander was if nothing else gloriously pompus even when simple soldiers were concerned - just imagine in what scale does that alone place his closest person and possible heir of his empire!

To Alexias: Unfortunately we do not know (if my memmory serves me right) the location in which the relief was found. I also do not believe in the hypothesis of the relief being a dedication from Cassander; I believe what the writer of the article suggested, that it was a simple man who had been helped by the Hero Hephaestion in some way. Thank you very much for your comment!!

One last detail: We have to imagine the relief colored and not marble - white.

[Alexias]

Thanks, System1988. Are there many caves in the vicinity of Pella? It does not look to be very rocky country and I would have thought that any caves in such a populated area would have long been appropriated by other deities. Could the cave on the relief simply be an artistic convention, symbolising the entrance to the underworld?

[Paralus]

If the latter, then Pericles seems to have commissioned the Parthenon and its statue of Athena Parthenos as part of a single plan and it could be difficult to maintain a precise distinction between a shrine and its sculptural decoration. Are the Elgin marbles part of the Parthenon or mere decorations, dedicatory reliefs not integral to the building (and therefore scarcely to be missed)?

That is about as analogous as comparing the average home mortgage to US debt. "Twisted" indeed.

A far more congruent comparison would be the votive apsides or panoplies dedicated within temples such as the Parthenon.

[Taphoi]

...Even if he had commissioned the shrine at Pella - and I have no idea of the size or scope of the place but maybe system1988 can advise - it doesn't mean that he commissioned this modest votive relief also, and under an assumed name, no less...

I have not said that Diogenes is an assumed name. I have said that it is an obvious title or epithet for Alexander. I have said that it was actually used in this way of Alexander by the citizens of ancient Alexandria. Pseudo-Callisthenes was very probably a citizen of Alexandria at the beginning of the 3rd century AD (or earlier), so he is an excellent source on this point (as Fraser, Ptolemaic Alexandria, wrote). Diogenes is not always used as a name in ancient Greek. It is, for example, widely used by Homer as an epithet which is translated literally as "Zeus-born". This is why it is in the dictionary. We have, for example, diogenes Patrocles (meaning Zeus-born Patrocles) in the Iliad 1.337 (and elsewhere) and also diogenes, son of Laertes, Odysseus at Iliad 2.173, 4.358... This terminology would have been very close to Alexander's heart. As I have shown, the dios-genos terminology was also used by Alexander's court historian, Callisthenes. As you will know, it is very likely that Alexander read his account of Alexander's expedition before it was published. All this makes it very likely that the diogenes epithet was the official terminology adopted by the regime for the fact that Alexander was addressed spontaneously as the son of Zeus-Ammon by his oracle. It is therefore at the least a huge coincidence that we also find it in what may be the only surviving inscription naming Hephaistion.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[marcus]

All this makes it very likely that the diogenes epithet was the official terminology adopted by the regime for the fact that Alexander was addressed spontaneously as the son of Zeus-Ammon by his oracle.

I think you ought to say "quite possible" or "likely", rather than "very likely" here, Andrew.

ATB

[Taphoi]

All this makes it very likely that the diogenes epithet was the official terminology adopted by the regime for the fact that Alexander was addressed spontaneously as the son of Zeus-Ammon by his oracle.

I think you ought to say "quite possible" or "likely", rather than "very likely" here, Andrew.

ATB

Thanks Marcus, but I think I shall stick to my terminology, which is already cautious relative to the evidence that I have presented - especially, for example, relative to the "cave-shrine" thing which is being asserted as fact but appears to be wild and unsubstantiated speculation.
Best wishes,
Andrew

[spitamenes]

Before the scholarly debate really gets going I have a sort of connected question. Strabo mentions a temple, a Hephaistion, on the island of Pharos at Alexandria. I'm recalling from memory here and would gladly be corrected. Was this a temple to Hephaistos/Ptah or could it have been the temple of Hephaistion himself? .

I have wondered this myself. Because if I remember correctly, ive read of it being dedicated to Alexanders Hepheistian, and in a different source, it being dedicated to the God... just curious.
edit... sorry folks... its been answered.

[amyntoros]

...Even if he had commissioned the shrine at Pella - and I have no idea of the size or scope of the place but maybe system1988 can advise - it doesn't mean that he commissioned this modest votive relief also, and under an assumed name, no less...

I have not said that Diogenes is an assumed name. I have said that it is an obvious title or epithet for Alexander. I have said that it was actually used in this way of Alexander by the citizens of ancient Alexandria.

Evidence? Evidence of the citizens of Alexandria actually referring to Alexander as Zeus-born? Not "Zeus-born Alexander" just "Zeus-born"? In texts, poems, archaeology? In other words, apart from your theory about this particular votive, I want to know where Alexander was called Diogenes and not as a title or epithet. Just Diogenes. If it was "actually used this way of Alexander by the citizens of ancient Alexandria" there must be more evidence than the (rather obvious) epithet in the Romance. If an Alexandrian said "Diogenes" alone and all the citizens understood this to mean "Alexander", something you are stating categorically as fact, then there must be evidence. I'd appreciate you sharing it.

Best regards,

[Taphoi]

Evidence? Evidence of the citizens of Alexandria actually referring to Alexander as Zeus-born? Not "Zeus-born Alexander" just "Zeus-born"? In texts, poems, archaeology? In other words, apart from your theory about this particular votive, I want to know where Alexander was called Diogenes and not as a title or epithet. Just Diogenes. If it was "actually used this way of Alexander by the citizens of ancient Alexandria" there must be more evidence than the (rather obvious) epithet in the Romance. If an Alexandrian said "Diogenes" alone and all the citizens understood this to mean "Alexander", something you are stating categorically as fact, then there must be evidence. I'd appreciate you sharing it.

I have already given you even this evidence too. Alexander is called Iove genitum (i.e. the Jove-born) by Curtius at 8.10.1, which is an exact and literal Latin translation of diogenes (given the syncretism between Jove and Zeus) in the original Greek of Cleitarchus. That Cleitarchus is Curtius' source here is virtually certain, since almost the same words are used in Metz Epitome 34 and it is uncontroversial that the common source of Curtius and the Metz was Cleitarchus.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[marcus]

Evidence? Evidence of the citizens of Alexandria actually referring to Alexander as Zeus-born? Not "Zeus-born Alexander" just "Zeus-born"? In texts, poems, archaeology? In other words, apart from your theory about this particular votive, I want to know where Alexander was called Diogenes and not as a title or epithet. Just Diogenes. If it was "actually used this way of Alexander by the citizens of ancient Alexandria" there must be more evidence than the (rather obvious) epithet in the Romance. If an Alexandrian said "Diogenes" alone and all the citizens understood this to mean "Alexander", something you are stating categorically as fact, then there must be evidence. I'd appreciate you sharing it.

I have already given you even this evidence too. Alexander is called Iove genitum (i.e. the Jove-born) by Curtius at 8.10.1, which is an exact and literal Latin translation of diogenes (given the syncretism between Jove and Zeus) in the original Greek of Cleitarchus. That Cleitarchus is Curtius' source here is virtually certain, since almost the same words are used in Metz Epitome 34 and it is uncontroversial that the common source of Curtius and the Metz was Cleitarchus.

Two literary references coming from one common literary source doesn't provide the evidence that Amyntoros is reasonably asking for, though, Andrew. Not by a long stretch.

I would also say that the context of the Curtius and the Metz quote leaves a lot to be desired when presented as evidence of the Alexandrian's actually referring to Alexander as Zeus-born. Irrespective of the Latin being a direct and, I agree, incontrovertible translation of "Diogenes", as this is reported speech of a bunch of flattering Indians, it isn't at all the same as even Cleitarchus referring to Alexander as "Zeus-born" as a commonly used epithet.

While I like your theory, very much, I have to say that you definitely need to present more concrete evidence than this if it is to hold any water. That's why I suggested that you tone down your "very likely" to "quite possible" or "likely". You've decided to stick with "very likely", which is fine ... but I have to stand with the others on this - you need to provide better evidence to justify saying that the dedicator was "very likely" Alexander.

ATB