Hephaestion's Relief

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

Moderator: pothos moderators

system1988
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:20 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Hephaestion's Relief

Post by system1988 »

athenas owl wrote: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.

Concerning the name of the temple I would have to say that it would have been named Hephaestionion (just like you suggested) or Ιερόν Ήρωος but Alexander did not live more than 8 months so he could establish a proper worship of Hephaestion and build luxury temples in his honor.
Πάντες άνθρωποι του ειδέναι ορέγονται φύσει
system1988
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:20 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Hephaestion's Relief

Post by system1988 »

Alexias wrote: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?

No, the Pella region is composed of fields mostly. If any caves existed there in the past we cannot tell due to its soil which is very frail; only a small hillock with a water spring is there.

Now as far as the cave relief is concerned, I dont think that it symbolizes the entrance to the underworld because is that case the tombstone reliefs would depict (at least a portion of them) the realm of Hades. On the other hand wherever and whenever we have found votive reliefs depicting caves the same reliefs belonged to god figures that were worshiped in caves (Pan, Nymphae, minor gods, heroes etc)

I would also like to correct a mistake of mine, the relief is on display not in Pella Museum but in Thessaloniki Museum (due to its significance I believe)


Best regards!
Πάντες άνθρωποι του ειδέναι ορέγονται φύσει
system1988
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:20 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Hephaestion's Relief

Post by system1988 »

ATB[/quote]

..., 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.

Andrew[/quote]


Wild and unsubstantiated? No.

Reasonable? Yes.

Opening an ancient greek of names Lexicon you will find that in just 3 islands there was a number of 80 Deogenes names. The name was very common in the ancient Greek world. Otherwise, just like another person posted in this thread, why would the conqueror of the world hide his name?
Furthermore, as i said, this relief was not expensive to have it made at the time. We have found many more reliefs, much more luxurious of considerably greater size dedicated to (and by) mere commoners, mortals.

Thanks however for your remarks.
Πάντες άνθρωποι του ειδέναι ορέγονται φύσει
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Hephaestion's Relief

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:As I have shown, the dios-genos terminology was also used by Alexander's court historian, Callisthenes.
Indeed you have. And, as with your other "evidence", it is used in a qualitative form to describe Alexander. It is not, as others have pointed out, a name given to the conqueror in the place of "Alexander"; rather it qualifies that name as "Alexander born of Zeus".
Taphoi wrote:... 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.
I see your manners are on a level with your evidence: lacking.
system1988 wrote:Opening an ancient greek of names Lexicon you will find that in just 3 islands there was a number of 80 Deogenes names. The name was very common in the ancient Greek world. Otherwise, just like another person posted in this thread, why would the conqueror of the world hide his name?
Why indeed? Perhaps he signed his letter to Cleomenes "Diogenes"?

The easiest or most likely solution is nearly always correct. Far from postulating that Alexander went by the actual name "Diogenes" and that Diogenes/Alexander had this votive relief commissioned in the weeks before he died, it is far simpler to accept that a non-descript Diogenes of Macedonia (perhaps of those veterans who did make it home) was responsible for the donative. The conqueror of the world does not seem so timid to me.

Have you any image of the actual inscription System1998?
Last edited by Paralus on Mon Sep 12, 2011 5:38 am, edited 1 time in total.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
User avatar
Taphoi
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 932
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:32 pm
Location: Bristol, England, UK
Contact:

Re: Hephaestion's Relief

Post by Taphoi »

marcus wrote: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.
If you think about it, Marcus, I hope you will realise that this cannot be terminology originated by the Indians. Apart from anything else, it is most unlikely that they spoke Greek. What is surely happening is that the Indians have heard rumours about the approaching conqueror, Alexander, and his purpose of emulating the conquests of his Zeus-born ancestors, being Zeus-born himself. As you say, they have decided it would be a smart move to flatter the conqueror by saying something that fitted in with these rumours. But, crucially, the actual terminology “Zeus-born” must be being applied by the source of this story to align the Indian rendering with Greek court-speak. You are also right that this person is not Cleitarchus. At about 70% probability, it is Onesicritus, Alexander’s chief pilot, who was Cleitarchus’ principal source for the Indian campaigns. At about 20% probability it is Nearchus, who was another major source. I think you should consider carefully, whether Onesicritus or Nearchus using the Zeus-born epithet (de-coupled from Alexander’s name) to refer to Alexander is not rather better evidence than an additional Alexandrian source using it.
Paralus wrote:
Taphoi wrote:As I have shown, the dios-genos terminology was also used by Alexander's court historian, Callisthenes.
Indeed you have. And, as with your other "evidence", it is used in a qualitative form to describe Alexander. It is not, as others have pointed out, a name given to the conqueror in the place of "Alexander"; rather it qualifies that name as "Alexander born of Zeus".
The argument that the use of “Zeus-born” joined to Alexander’s name means that it was not used in isolation is the same as arguing that references to Her Majesty as “Queen Elizabeth” mean that she cannot be called just “The Queen”. In fact, however, as has been said, Curtius 8.10.1 is a clear instance of Alexander being referred to as a Diogenes, along with Heracles and Dionysus, decoupled from his actual name.

Best wishes,

Andrew
system1988
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:20 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Hephaestion's Relief

Post by system1988 »

Paralus wrote:
Taphoi wrote:As I have shown, the dios-genos terminology was also used by Alexander's court historian, Callisthenes.
Indeed you have. And, as with your other "evidence", it is used in a qualitative form to describe Alexander. It is not, as others have pointed out, a name given to the conqueror in the place of "Alexander"; rather it qualifies that name as "Alexander born of Zeus".
Taphoi wrote:... 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.
I see your manners are on a level with your evidence: lacking.
system1988 wrote:Opening an ancient greek of names Lexicon you will find that in just 3 islands there was a number of 80 Deogenes names. The name was very common in the ancient Greek world. Otherwise, just like another person posted in this thread, why would the conqueror of the world hide his name?
Why indeed? Perhaps he signed his letter to Cleomenes "Diogenes"?

The simplest solution is nearly always correct. Far from postulating that Alexander went by the actual name "Diogenes" and that Diogenes/Alexander had this votive relief commissioned in the weeks before he died, it is far simpler to accept that a non-descript Diogenes of Macedonia (perhaps of those veterans who did make it home) was responsible for the donative. The conqueror of the world does not seem so timid to me.

Have you any image of the actual inscription System1998?

Yes I do have it but it is rather unclear a photo. The cell phone camera did not prove up to the challenge at all. Anyway here it is, I have split it into 4 seperate photos so you could see it clearer. I will make another post for the 2 left.
Attachments
Φωτογ.0018 - Αντίγραφο.jpg
Φωτογ.0018 - Αντίγραφο.jpg (75.64 KiB) Viewed 5926 times
Φωτογ.0017 - Αντίγραφο.jpg
Φωτογ.0017 - Αντίγραφο.jpg (74.5 KiB) Viewed 5926 times
Πάντες άνθρωποι του ειδέναι ορέγονται φύσει
system1988
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:20 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Hephaestion's Relief

Post by system1988 »

I am also sending you the full photo of the relief. It is also blurry unfortunately.
Attachments
Φωτογ.0016 - Αντίγραφο.jpg
Φωτογ.0016 - Αντίγραφο.jpg (75.09 KiB) Viewed 5926 times
Φωτογ.0020 - Αντίγραφο.jpg
Φωτογ.0020 - Αντίγραφο.jpg (88.09 KiB) Viewed 5926 times
Φωτογ.0019 - Αντίγραφο.jpg
Φωτογ.0019 - Αντίγραφο.jpg (80.13 KiB) Viewed 5926 times
Πάντες άνθρωποι του ειδέναι ορέγονται φύσει
system1988
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:20 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Hephaestion's Relief

Post by system1988 »

And since I said that we must picture in our minds the relief colored, I am sending you an inscribed tombstone (from the cemetery in the area of agora of the city of Pella) with some of its coloring still there. It is dated back to the ending of the 5th century BC and it displays Xanthos, son of Demetrios and Amadica along with his every day possetions: a pidgeon, a dog and a wheel. As it clearly shows ( I know the photo is still blurry :oops: ) the background was bright blue and the youth' shair blond.
Attachments
Φωτογ.0014 - Αντίγραφο.jpg
Φωτογ.0014 - Αντίγραφο.jpg (56.36 KiB) Viewed 5926 times
Πάντες άνθρωποι του ειδέναι ορέγονται φύσει
system1988
Hetairos (companion)
Posts: 740
Joined: Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:20 am
Location: Athens, Greece

Re: Hephaestion's Relief

Post by system1988 »

And to finish this day with something nice here are a few more photos from the Pella excavations! Here are some photos of the city of Pella thast was as long as 2,5 kms; the city reached its peak during Cassander's reign. The thick web of water and sewage systems that was found in almost all roads, the fountains, the tanks and the baths (public and private) show the wealth of the inhabitants (behold something that was made possible by Alexander's conquests).

The clay- made holes in the ground are public baths, the photo with a line spreading from the top is a road of the city with water pipes and the circle object is a stone slab from a table with floral and geometric decoration (from a house in Pella) Again sorry for the poor quality of the photos...

Best regards to all!
Attachments
Φωτογ.0024 - Αντίγραφο.jpg
Φωτογ.0024 - Αντίγραφο.jpg (62.54 KiB) Viewed 5925 times
Φωτογ.0023 - Αντίγραφο.jpg
Φωτογ.0023 - Αντίγραφο.jpg (68.56 KiB) Viewed 5925 times
Φωτογ.0021 - Αντίγραφο.jpg
Φωτογ.0021 - Αντίγραφο.jpg (71.41 KiB) Viewed 5925 times
Πάντες άνθρωποι του ειδέναι ορέγονται φύσει
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Hephaestion's Relief

Post by marcus »

Taphoi wrote:If you think about it, Marcus, I hope you will realise that this cannot be terminology originated by the Indians. Apart from anything else, it is most unlikely that they spoke Greek.
I didn't say at any point that the Indians spoke Greek. Of course it is reported as what they said and almost certainly had to be translated. I'm not sure what that has got to do with the point, but anyway ...
Taphoi wrote:As you say, they have decided it would be a smart move to flatter the conqueror by saying something that fitted in with these rumours. But, crucially, the actual terminology “Zeus-born” must be being applied by the source of this story to align the Indian rendering with Greek court-speak.
Er ... yes ... but that doesn't mean that this was how everyone referred to Alexander, and that if someone called himself Diogenes, then everyone in Alexandria (at least) would instinctively know that this was Alexander. That is what you have been proposing, if not categorically stating.
Taphoi wrote:You are also right that this person is not Cleitarchus. At about 70% probability, it is Onesicritus, Alexander’s chief pilot, who was Cleitarchus’ principal source for the Indian campaigns. At about 20% probability it is Nearchus, who was another major source. I think you should consider carefully, whether Onesicritus or Nearchus using the Zeus-born epithet (de-coupled from Alexander’s name) to refer to Alexander is not rather better evidence than an additional Alexandrian source using it.
Actually, I didn't say that "this person" is not Cleitarchus. But that is totally beside the point. Whether it is Onesicritus, or Nearchus, or Cleitarchus, two references going back to one original source reference, translating what the Indians said into Greek that was recognisable to a Greek-speaking audience, does not constitute evidence that Alexander was commonly referred to as "Diogenes".
Taphoi wrote:
Paralus wrote:
Taphoi wrote:As I have shown, the dios-genos terminology was also used by Alexander's court historian, Callisthenes.
Indeed you have. And, as with your other "evidence", it is used in a qualitative form to describe Alexander. It is not, as others have pointed out, a name given to the conqueror in the place of "Alexander"; rather it qualifies that name as "Alexander born of Zeus".
The argument that the use of “Zeus-born” joined to Alexander’s name means that it was not used in isolation is the same as arguing that references to Her Majesty as “Queen Elizabeth” mean that she cannot be called just “The Queen”. In fact, however, as has been said, Curtius 8.10.1 is a clear instance of Alexander being referred to as a Diogenes, along with Heracles and Dionysus, decoupled from his actual name.
As a form of flattery, yes, in a literary work, which is way different from it being how he was commonly referred to. And it is only one instance (I'll say it again - which is not evidence that this was a common occurrence.)

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

Re: Hephaestion's Relief

Post by amyntoros »

Taphoi wrote:
marcus wrote: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.
If you think about it, Marcus, I hope you will realise that this cannot be terminology originated by the Indians. Apart from anything else, it is most unlikely that they spoke Greek. What is surely happening is that the Indians have heard rumours about the approaching conqueror, Alexander, and his purpose of emulating the conquests of his Zeus-born ancestors, being Zeus-born himself. As you say, they have decided it would be a smart move to flatter the conqueror by saying something that fitted in with these rumours. But, crucially, the actual terminology “Zeus-born” must be being applied by the source of this story to align the Indian rendering with Greek court-speak.
And yet I still don't understand why you believe this supports your argument. The text says that Alexander was "the third son of Jupiter to have reached them, but, whereas they knew of Father Liber and Herakles only by report, Alexander had come in person and was before their eyes." What the biographer(s) are actually telling us is that Alexander (and/or his friends) encouraged, or at the very least didn't discourage, being described as a son of Zeus. This is something we all knew already. What the text isn't telling us is that Alexander used Diogenes as a name, independent of his own.
Taphoi wrote: The argument that the use of “Zeus-born” joined to Alexander’s name means that it was not used in isolation is the same as arguing that references to Her Majesty as “Queen Elizabeth” mean that she cannot be called just “The Queen”. In fact, however, as has been said, Curtius 8.10.1 is a clear instance of Alexander being referred to as a Diogenes, along with Heracles and Dionysus, decoupled from his actual name.
No it's not the same. The reasoning about Queen Elizabeth is logical. If anyone in A's army called him just "The King" then we know they are talking about Alexander, for obvious reasons. If any source writer refers to Alexander as just "The King" then we also know who they are talking about because we're reading a bio of Alexander. Same thing applies to your argument about Curtius' reference. We know the the Indians are talking to Alexander. This, however, is not something which applies to the use of Zeus-born as a name by itself. One of your arguments throughout this thread has been that the people in Alexandria commonly referred to Alexander as just "Diogenes", so presumably if someone said they were going to the temple of Diogenes, everyone would know they meant "Alexander". I fervently disagree.

Some epithets can stand alone. If an ancient Greek, talking about the gods, said "cow-eyed" everyone would have known he meant Hera. Same thing with "twice-born" which can only mean Dionysos, and "earthshaker" for Poseidon. The same does not apply to "Zeus-born". I'll begin with the gods. Athena and Dionysos come immediately to mind again, but if you look at Zeus' family on Theoi.com there's a list of Zeus-born gods as long as my arm. The god or goddess has to be specified. Then we come to mortal offspring (on the same page) and the list is even longer, including a good number of kings. In addition - and you've already referred to the use of the epithet in Homer - Ken Dowden in his book Zeus has this to say about the kingly epithet:
(Page 72) Homer would agree with Hesiod that 'kings are from Zeus' just as bards are from the Muses and Apollo (Theogony 94-6). That is why kings or princes such as Patroclus, Ajax, Agamemnon, Menelaus and, most frequently, Odysseus are described by Homer as Zeus-born (diogenes). Herakles on the other hand is described as 'Zeus-born' because he is. In the case of kings, you can if you wish explain this by the supposition that the king's line goes back to Zeus, but that only re-expresses what the epithet amounts to: kings rule with an authority that comes from Zeus. And as his managers, they are also subject to surprise audits, as we will see below. A king is also Diotrephes - nourished by Zeus, reared and made into who he is by Zeus. These are quite emphatic epithets and we must not think that they just mean vaguely 'divinely favoured' - the word for 'god' in Greek is theos and the Greeks do not have any of the Latin di or deus-shaped words that I think we sometimes subconsciously and wrongly hear in these Greek epithets. Dio- means Zeus.
Peter Green in Alexander of Macedon refers to the Macedonian royalty being Zeus-born in Alexander's time. (Plus we should never ignore the direct influence of Homer on Alexander and his family).
(Page5)The Argeads themselves, as we have seen, headed their pedigree with Heracles, and could thus (since Heracles was the son of Zeus) style themselves 'Zeus-born' like any Mycenaean dynast: both Zeus and Heracles appear regularly on Philip's coinage.
It follows then that Philip was also Zeus-born, as was Arridaeus and also Alexander's son, and, if you believe that Ptolemy was Philip's son (something which you have argued previously), then Ptolemy could also style himself Zeus-born. He certainly promoted the association. In Imagination of a monarchy: studies in Ptolemaic propaganda R.A. Hazzard tells us"
(Page 9)Ptolemy I struck silver tetradrachms bearing the portrait of Alexander wearing the horn of Ammon, the aegis of Zeus, and the elephant's skin. Goukowsky saw no sign of association here between Alexander on the one hand and Dionysos on the other. Ptolemy I worshippped Dionysos, a Macedonian favourite, just as he worshipped the other deities - Athena, Aphrodite, Alexander, and Sarapis - but Zeus had received the greatest attention. Zeus had allegedly saved the future monarch at birth, and on silver tetradrachms struck after 300, Ptolemy I wore the aegis, symbol of Zeus, while the eagle of Zeus blazoned the reverse side. By the time that Ptolemy II held the great pageant, however, Dionysos had taken a much greater role in the king's propaganda than Zeus had taken under Ptolemy I. The Dionysiac section of the pageant carried the greatest amount of gold and silver, while the float entitled 'The Return of Dionysos from India' identified Dionysos with Alexander. Dionysos had conquered India in legend, whereas Alexander had conquered it in fact. Goukowsky observed how the two conquerors had merged into a single myth by the time of the grand procession.
Not only does the above show the connection between Ptolemy and Zeus, it also demonstrates that, as time went by, Alexander's association with Dionysos increased and his association with Zeus decreased. I don't have time (or space) to transcribe any more regarding Alexander and Dio, but what Hazzard is illustrating is that the connection was primarily an Alexandrian thing, making it even less credible, IMO, that the Alexandrians' common name for Alexander was 'Diogenes'.

I did want to refer to system1988's example of the number of people who bore the name Diogenes. (Thank you, system1988 for that. I tried to find similar info via Google but the search engine wouldn't cooperate.) One thing is for certain, we have no examples of Alexander calling himself the same. Yes there are references to him being the son of Zeus (including derisive ones), but he never used 'Zeus-born' himself. He didn't sign his letters to Darius as Diogenes. He didn't issue any edicts as Diogenes. He didn't address his troops as Diogenes. His statues and paintings - even the ones where he is portrayed as Zeus - do not bear the name Diogenes. So why would I accept that the Diogenes on the votive is Alexander?

One last thing to lighten this up a little. Some years ago I saved a web page with an ancient joke but lost the url in a computer crash and have never been able to find it since. I still remember the gist of it though, and it's necessary to understand that when the ancients cursed or swore, they swore by the gods, and the strongest curse would have been to invoke the name of the most powerful god, Zeus. I'm pretty certain that all current Pothosians know this, but thought I should mention it anyway. The joke goes thus:

A traveler from outside of the mainland was visiting Athens and being escorted around the city by an Athenian acquaintance. As the day progressed the visitor became increasingly shocked by the swearing he heard from Athen's citizens. He asked his friend, "Why is it that so many of you swear by Zeus". His friend replied, "Because so many of us ARE 'by Zeus'!"

Done now. Hope that the couple of vodkas I've consumed since experiencing my first earthquake (while writing this) haven't affected my spelling and grammar too much. :lol:

Best regards,
Amyntoros

Pothos Lunch Room Monitor
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Hephaestion's Relief

Post by marcus »

amyntoros wrote:A traveler from outside of the mainland was visiting Athens and being escorted around the city by an Athenian acquaintance. As the day progressed the visitor became increasingly shocked by the swearing he heard from Athen's citizens. He asked his friend, "Why is it that so many of you swear by Zeus". His friend replied, "Because so many of us ARE 'by Zeus'!"

Done now. Hope that the couple of vodkas I've consumed since experiencing my first earthquake (while writing this) haven't affected my spelling and grammar too much. :lol:
Nope, hadn't heard that one before, but it's a goody! :D

Earthquake - eek! Hope everything's OK?

ARB
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
User avatar
Paralus
Chiliarch
Posts: 2875
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 8:13 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: Hephaestion's Relief

Post by Paralus »

Taphoi wrote:What is surely happening is that the Indians have heard rumours about the approaching conqueror, Alexander, and his purpose of emulating the conquests of his Zeus-born ancestors, being Zeus-born himself. As you say, they have decided it would be a smart move to flatter the conqueror by saying something that fitted in with these rumours. But, crucially, the actual terminology “Zeus-born” must be being applied by the source of this story to align the Indian rendering with Greek court-speak.
During this stage of the expedition such flattery would be commonplace. Most likely the more sycophantic of the court would prep the locals on what was to be found and it duly was (the cave of Prometheus, the trail taken by Heracles and or Dionysus etc). The translations have this correct: lower case. The Indians are simply acknowledging Alexander as the third son of Zeus to come their way. This is no evidence of a court tradition that referred to Alexander by the title "Zeus Born"; it is evidence of sedulous flattery (as Curtius makes plain by his context when he describes "the petty kings") and evidence that they felt it best to accept the propaganda of Alexander's lineage. Indeed it is almost Athenian in its grovelling:
Curtius 8.10.1:
He was, they said, the third son of Jupiter to have reached them but, whereas they knew of Father Liber and Hercules only by report, Alexander had come in person and was before their eyes.

Athenaeus, Deipnosophistae VI.253e
Hail son of the most powerful god Poseidon and Aphrodite! For other gods are either far away or do not have ears, or they do not exist, or do not take any notice of us but you we can see present here; you are not made of wood and stone, you are real.
The latter is in reference to Demetrius Poliorcetes yet no one insists that his court title was "Poseidon and Aphrodite Born".
Taphoi wrote: As for the terminology Diogenes, it was also used of Alexander by Callisthenes:
Strabo 17.1.43 quoting Callisthenes wrote:ἐκ Διὸς γενέσεως τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου
And also...
Taphoi wrote:In English, if one person said to another person, "Help me, King", unless you knew who the two people were, it could be a subject appealing to the monarch for assistance or it could be a schoolmaster addressing a pupil, whose name was King. [...] You have to judge from what you know of the context whether it is a King or the King
Good advice that: take the words in context. So let's do that given you provided no context. Strabo, referencing Callisthenes, says that the oracle agreed that Alexander was a son of Zeus (Dios huios / Διὸς υἱός). The reference you so rely upon is simply Callisthenes' story of the Milesian ambassadors carrying oracles concerning Alexander's lineage: his descent from Zeus (Dios geneseōs / Διὸς γενέσεως):
...Callisthenes adds, (after the exaggerating style of tragedy,) that when Apollo had deserted the oracle among the Branchidæ, on the temple being plundered by the Branchidæ (who espoused the party of the Persians in the time of Xerxes,) and the spring had failed, it then re-appeared (on the arrival of Alexander); that the ambassadors also of the Milesians carried back to Memphis numerous answers of the oracle respecting the descent of Alexander from Jupiter, and the future victory which he should obtain at Arbela, the death of Darius, and the political changes at Lacedæmon. He says also that the Erythræan Athenais, who resembled the ancient Erythræan Sibyl, had declared the high descent of Alexander.
None of this supports the notion that Callisthenes used the words as Alexander's title.
Paralus
Ἐπὶ τοὺς πατέρας, ὦ κακαὶ κεφαλαί, τοὺς μετὰ Φιλίππου καὶ Ἀλεξάνδρου τὰ ὅλα κατειργασμένους;
Wicked men, you sin against your fathers, who conquered the whole world under Philip and Alexander.

Academia.edu
agesilaos
Strategos (general)
Posts: 2180
Joined: Mon Sep 09, 2002 3:16 pm
Location: LONDON

Re: Hephaestion's Relief

Post by agesilaos »

The main problem I can see with your Mill's and Boon interpretation is that the distinctly ropey sources we have seem to imply that Alexander was wont to refer to his divine father as Ammon and not Zeus, even Ephippos mentions no blasphemy against Zeus, though seemingly going out of his way to include as many deities as possible.


I see we have your usual scientific approach of bunging mud and hoping that some will obscure the argument. As for the terminology Diogenes, it was also used of Alexander by Callisthenes:

Strabo 17.1.43 quoting Callisthenes wrote:
ἐκ Διὸς γενέσεως τοῦ Ἀλεξάνδρου


and

Curtius 8.10.1 wrote:
tertium Iove genitum

which would be third Diogenes in the original Greek.

So much for your puerile rhetoric.

Best wishes,

Andrew

No, I have looked sensibly at the sources, along with the others in this thread and found your overblown posturing wanting. You have NOT produced any evidence that the form diogenes was used in fact it is your quote from the Romance that shows the form was probably 'genos Dios'. Once again the crass insults in your so-called reply betray the level of your education.
When you think about, it free-choice is the only possible option.
User avatar
marcus
Somatophylax
Posts: 4785
Joined: Fri Aug 16, 2002 7:27 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Hephaestion's Relief

Post by marcus »

Gentlemen, gentlemen!
:(
Marcus
Sine doctrina vita est quasi mortis imago
At Amazon US
At Amazon UK
Post Reply