Bagoas left behind in Hyrcania

[Taphoi]

I did get my reading from Perseus, having mislaid my Loeb. You err in saying there is only one manuscript of Indike, though, there are eight...

I did not say that there is only one manuscript, I said that it was transmitted via a single manuscript, which is quite different. To quote Brunt: "A G Roos is held to have shown that [the 15th century Paris manuscript] and all other extant manuscripts were copied from an extant codex in Vienna written about AD1200."

Obviously, "Pharnoucheos" is not inconsistent with it being the eunuch, but in my opinion corruption from eunouchos is much more likely. It is simply too great a coincidence that the words are so similar.

You seem to think that names would have been capitalised in the manuscripts, which is not true.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

Obviously, "Pharnoucheos" is not inconsistent with it being the eunuch, but in my opinion corruption from eunouchos is much more likely. It is simply too great a coincidence that the words are so similar.

You have made no case for this utterly unnecessary emendation other than a claimed "coincidence" which is, in fact, little more than a convenience. There is absolutely no reason for the text to read anything other than Βαγώας ὁ Φαρνούχεος. Every other trierach is named with his patronymic and so therefore is this Bagoas. Moreover, the eunuch Bagaos is unattested in the Anabasis although Arrian uses eunuch of others five times. There is no reason for Arrian to list this Bagoas as Βαγώας ὁ εὐνοῦχος when he is listing every named person with his patronymic.

There is even less reason to believe that an "intermediary" would feel compelled to go research Arrian's works to find a patronymic for this Bagoas even were εὐνοῦχος used. That is a tortuous and tenuous "argument".

That the text read Βαγώας ὁ Φαρνούχεος is far more logical in the context of patronymics than an "argument" which can best be described as tendentious.

[Arethusa33]

Why the resistance to the favourite Bagoas being the son of a Pharnouches? As far as I can remember there is no other mention of a patronymic.

Why not ? Nothing proves that Bagoas son of Pharnuches was the same man as Bagoas the eunuch, Alexander's favorite.

I believe that Bagoas the eunuch was left behind by Alexander, at the palace in Hyrcania with the 365 concubines of Darius' harem.Reason why during 5 years after his first mention, in july-August 330 BC, we never heard of him until november 325 BC when the satrap of Hyrcania Phrataphernes sent supplies to Alexander after the disastrous crossing of the Gedrosian desert. I also think that to soothe that army which endured an awful hardship, Phrataphernes sent also entertainments, among whose was Bagoas, who had pleased the King 5 years earlier.

In 326 BC, he couldn't be at the same time in Hyrcania and commander of a trireme on the banks of the Hydaspes.

[Taphoi]

Obviously, "Pharnoucheos" is not inconsistent with it being the eunuch, but in my opinion corruption from eunouchos is much more likely. It is simply too great a coincidence that the words are so similar.

You have made no case for this utterly unnecessary emendation other than a claimed "coincidence" which is, in fact, little more than a convenience. There is absolutely no reason for the text to read anything other than Βαγώας ὁ Φαρνούχεος. Every other trierach is named with his patronymic and so therefore is this Bagoas. Moreover, the eunuch Bagaos is unattested in the Anabasis although Arrian uses eunuch of others five times. There is no reason for Arrian to list this Bagoas as Βαγώας ὁ εὐνοῦχος when he is listing every named person with his patronymic.

There is even less reason to believe that an "intermediary" would feel compelled to go research Arrian's works to find a patronymic for this Bagoas even were εὐνοῦχος used. That is a tortuous and tenuous "argument".

That the text read Βαγώας ὁ Φαρνούχεος is far more logical in the context of patronymics than an "argument" which can best be described as tendentious.

There are nearly 100 names and patronymics in Arrian's (actually Nearchus's) list in Indica 18. No other is anywhere near as similar to εὐνοῦχος as φαρνούχεος. (I doubt whether there is any other name in the whole of Arrian that is more similar to εὐνοῦχος, although I have not checked!) Therefore it is a matter of plain and indisputable statistical fact that it is a great coincidence to find this name associated with Bagoas. For example, the eunuch chiliarch Bagoas is described as Βαγώας ὁ εὐνοῦχος in Aelian, Varia Historia 6.8, so this is exactly how we should expect Alexander's eunuch lover to be described

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Alexias]

In 326 BC, he couldn't be at the same time in Hyrcania and commander of a trireme on the banks of the Hydaspes.

Arethusa, it is your unproven theory that Bagoas the eunuch was left behind in Hycania. You cannot therefore use this as proof that he could not be Euxenippus/Bagoas or Bagoas son of Pharunces. That is a basic law of rhetoric as it is a circular argument that leads nowhere. The latter two mentions are unproven to be Bagoas the eunuch or one or two other people, so they cannot be used to prove or disprove your theory.

What you could possibly use to support your theory is that Curtius says that Alexander 'presently' began a sexual relationship with Bagoas. 'Presently' means not straight away and although it is a stretch to make it equal five years (by which time Bagoas may have lost his looks), it could be possible. Equally though, that 'presently' could entirely disprove your theory and mean that Bagoas accompanied Alexander beyond Hyrcania.

[Arethusa33]

In 326 BC, he couldn't be at the same time in Hyrcania and commander of a trireme on the banks of the Hydaspes.

Arethusa, it is your unproven theory that Bagoas the eunuch was left behind in Hycania. You cannot therefore use this as proof that he could not be Euxenippus/Bagoas or Bagoas son of Pharunces. That is a basic law of rhetoric as it is a circular argument that leads nowhere. The latter two mentions are unproven to be Bagoas the eunuch or one or two other people, so they cannot be used to prove or disprove your theory.

What you could possibly use to support your theory is that Curtius says that Alexander 'presently' began a sexual relationship with Bagoas. 'Presently' means not straight away and although it is a stretch to make it equal five years (by which time Bagoas may have lost his looks), it could be possible. Equally though, that 'presently' could entirely disprove your theory and mean that Bagoas accompanied Alexander beyond Hyrcania.

Hi Alexias,

You have probably not read my first post which starts this thread and where I explained my reasoning. And as you have not quote my last post entirely, taken out of context, the sentence that you quote seems wild imaginings.But if it is indeed a theory, it is not an invention at all.

In his book 6, # 6. 14 to 17, Curtius said that Alexander's army progressed very slowly due to the weight of the spoils of war that the soldiers had accumulated during the last months.

So, Alexander gave orders first for his own and then the whole army's baggage to be hauled into their midst, absolute necessities alone excepted and the animals to be led off. And then he put a torch to his own baggage first and then gave instructions for the rest to be burnt.

I don't think that the 365 concubines and Bagoas were absolute necessities, so I presume that they were left behind at the palace when the army proceeded towards Bactriana.Because I can't imagine that Alexander who always set a good example to his men, required that they got rid of their spoils of war which slowed down the march but that he kept his 365 concubines. This incident took place when Nicanor died so probably around october 330 BC.And as we never heard of Bagoas until november 325 BC, it is not extravagant to deduce that he was left behind at the palace with the 365 concubines.

It was in november 325 BC that Phrataphernes, satrap of Hyrcania was ordered by Alexander, to sent him supplies after the disastrous crossing of the Gedrosian desert.To soothe that army which endured an awful hardship, Phrataphernes sent probably also entertainments, among whose was Bagoas, who had pleased the King 5 years earlier. Anyway, that was at this time that Bagoas won a dance contest and was kissed publicly by Alexander.

You are free to disagree with me but I am also free to present this theory.

[agesilaos]

Aresthusa, I am not saying that Pharnuches has to be the father of the eunuch Bagoas, I just wonder why Andrew is so insistent that it cannot be, why else this theory of a textual error?

It is simply too great a coincidence that the words are so similar.

Presumably, we can substitute every instance of Pharnouches with eunuch then. Which would make him the multi-lingual leader of the Polytimetos disaster, maybe that was why the Macedonian officers were so reluctant to take his command from him! Guff, of course. Worthington has the trierarch Bagoas as the son of this Pharnouches, sadly only on the grounds of 'the rarity of this patronymic'

Yes, excido is a word it was the way you were trying to form your unique noun from it; I tremembered there was an issue but failed to check what it was, Doh!

There are nearly 100 names and patronymics in Arrian's (actually Nearchus's) list in Indica 18. No other is anywhere near as similar to εὐνοῦχος as φαρνούχεος. (I doubt whether there is any other name in the whole of Arrian that is more similar to εὐνοῦχος, although I have not checked!) Therefore it is a matter of plain and indisputable statistical fact that it is a great coincidence to find this name associated with Bagoas. For example, the eunuch chiliarch Bagoas is described as Βαγώας ὁ εὐνοῦχος in Aelian, Varia Historia 6.8, so this is exactly how we should expect Alexander's eunuch lover to be described

There are 36 names with patronymics and it is hardly a statistic that these Macedonians and Greeks had no Persian parents, the point cannot be dignified with the name.
Of more interest statistically is that nowhere in the ancient texts is Bagoas called Bagoas the Eunuch that distinction belongs to the murderous chiliarch even Aelian III 23 has a plain Bagoas, allegedly from the 'Ephemerides', Curtius too does not use 'spado' as a title. Shame nobody told Plutarch, Curtius, Aelian and even Quintillian XII 21, how they should describe Alexander's lover!

[Alexias]

Arethusa, you have misunderstood. I am not arguing against your theory that Bagoas was left behind. What I am saying is that you cannot say that Euxenippus and Bagoas son of Pharnabuces cannot be Bagoas the eunuch because Bagoas the eunuch was left behind in Hyrcania, when you do not know with certainty that Bagoas the eunuch was left behind. You are simply assuming that he was considered inessential and was left behind. As an able-bodied young man he would have been able to keep up with the army in a way the women could not, but you may be right. Who knows?

BTW, I think it more likely that the harem and Darius' family had been left behind long before, either in Ecbatana (a royal palace) with Parmenion, or even earler in Susa, not somewhere out of the way like Zadracarta. Unless it is definitely mentioned somewhere in the sources?

[Taphoi]

Of more interest statistically is that nowhere in the ancient texts is Bagoas called Bagoas the Eunuch that distinction belongs to the murderous chiliarch even Aelian III 23 has a plain Bagoas, allegedly from the 'Ephemerides', Curtius too does not use 'spado' as a title. Shame nobody told Plutarch, Curtius, Aelian and even Quintillian XII 21, how they should describe Alexander's lover!

Not really true I'm afraid: Athenaeus 603B refers to Alexander's Bagoas as Βαγώου τοῦ εὐνούχου.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Arethusa33]

Arethusa, you have misunderstood. I am not arguing against your theory that Bagoas was left behind. What I am saying is that you cannot say that Euxenippus and Bagoas son of Pharnabuces cannot be Bagoas the eunuch because Bagoas the eunuch was left behind in Hyrcania, when you do not know with certainty that Bagoas the eunuch was left behind. You are simply assuming that he was considered inessential and was left behind. As an able-bodied young man he would have been able to keep up with the army in a way the women could not, but you may be right. Who knows?

BTW, I think it more likely that the harem and Darius' family had been left behind long before, either in Ecbatana (a royal palace) with Parmenion, or even earler in Susa, not somewhere out of the way like Zadracarta. Unless it is definitely mentioned somewhere in the sources?

Alexias, I can understand the debate about the trierarch Bagoas son of Pharnuches but I can't understand why you deny the existence of Euxenippos.

Whatever be his name, Euxenippos couldn't be Bagoas because when Curtius talked about the eunuch he was always scornful and I don't read scornful words when he talks about Euxenippos.And Bagoas was an exceptionally good-looking eunuch.Euxenippos was handsome but not more than Hephaistion. And if Euxenippos was Bagoas, if we compare Hephaistion to a eunuch, it is obvious that he was more manly than him and I find even insulting for Hephaistion to be compared to a eunuch.Euxenippos was an effeminate man but not a eunuch.

Curtius said that at this time, in the royal quarters, there were 365 concubines and hordes of eunuchs practised in playing the woman's part. Knowing Curtius, it was surely exaggerated, but nevertheless they were part of the Great King's splendor and they were surely still with the army in Hyrcania.

In a certain way Bagoas was part of the spoils of war, he was not a soldier, he was a luxury. Alexander required of his soldiers that they got rid of their spoils of war, so even if it was a sacrifice for Alexander, to be fair with his army, he left Bagoas behind.

[Paralus]

There are nearly 100 names and patronymics in Arrian's (actually Nearchus's) list in Indica 18. No other is anywhere near as similar to εὐνοῦχος as φαρνούχεος. (I doubt whether there is any other name in the whole of Arrian that is more similar to εὐνοῦχος, although I have not checked!) Therefore it is a matter of plain and indisputable statistical fact that it is a great coincidence to find this name associated with Bagoas.

You create the impression of incredulous coincidence as easily as you emend away contradictory evidence: "There are nearly 100 names and patronymics in Arrian's (actually Nearchus's) list in Indica 18. No other is anywhere near as similar to εὐνοῦχος as φαρνούχεος."

And that would be because every single other named trierach is Greco-Macedonian. Why, pray tell (as I see has already been noted), would they have a patronymic remotely resembling that of a Persian? This is the sum total of your "argument"?!

You have - as always - singularly failed to address the point: why, in a list of names and associated patronymics, would a Persian patronymic for a Persian (so clearly indicated) trierach be unusual? The notation of this Bagoas "Alexander appointed also a Persian trierarch, Bagoas son of Pharnuces..." is exactly the same as every single other trierach so listed: his name, origin and patronymic. Because this does not suit your view, this notation must be re-written and we must imagine a copyist suspending his work to locate Arrian's other texts so as to search for a patronymic to suit.

If this Bagoas is the son of Pharnuches as the text has it, then this (Βαγώας ὁ Φαρνούχεος) is exactly how we should expect Pharnuces' son Bagoas to be described

[Taphoi]

And that would be because every single other named trierach is Greco-Macedonian. Why, pray tell (as I see has already been noted), would they have a patronymic remotely resembling that of a Persian?

There are lots of Persian names as well for you to compare in the Anabasis Alexandrou & Indica... Please let us know what you find.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Paralus]

And that would be because every single other named trierach is Greco-Macedonian. Why, pray tell (as I see has already been noted), would they have a patronymic remotely resembling that of a Persian?

There are lots of Persian names as well for you to compare in the Anabasis Alexandrou & Indica... Please let us know what you find.

Excuse me for replying to the "royal plural" in such fashion, but, address the question. Or is that too difficult for you?

You have - as always - singularly failed to address the point: why, in a list of names and associated patronymics, would a Persian patronymic for a Persian (so clearly indicated) trierach be unusual? The notation of this Bagoas "Alexander appointed also a Persian trierarch, Bagoas son of Pharnuces..." is exactly the same as every single other trierach so listed: his name, origin and patronymic. Because this does not suit your view, this notation must be re-written and we must imagine a copyist suspending his work to locate Arrian's other texts so as to search for a patronymic to suit.

If this Bagoas is the son of Pharnuches as the text has it, then this (Βαγώας ὁ Φαρνούχεος) is exactly how we should expect Pharnuces' son Bagoas to be described

Aside from the fact that the name Bagoas is hardly unique, your continued obfuscation is becoming boring. As has been pointed out "if you allow modern opinions more credibility than the ancient evidence, then you licence the invention of history". None more so than when one emends a text simply to suit a view.

[Arethusa33]

Aresthusa, I am not saying that Pharnuches has to be the father of the eunuch Bagoas, I just wonder why Andrew is so insistent that it cannot be, why else this theory of a textual error?

Hi Agesilaos,

Even if we consider as purely honorific, the title of trierarch, I just can't imagine the historical eunuch Bagoas( not the Mary Renault's one), commander of a trireme.

And we can't systematically base a theory on a textual error. Mine is not.I just say that if the eunuch Bagoas was left in Hyrcania,in 330 BC, he couldn't be Bagoas, son of Pharnuches, commander of a trireme on the banks of the Hydaspes in 326 BC.Of course nothing proves that my theory is right but nothing proves that it is wrong either.

[Paralus]

I just say that if the eunuch Bagoas was left in Hyrcania,in 330 BC, he couldn't be Bagoas, son of Pharnuches, commander of a trireme on the banks of the Hydaspes in 326 BC.Of course nothing proves that my theory is right but nothing proves that it is wrong either.

I'll save the prince of polemic the trouble of rewriting:

No, there is no reason at all. I will assert that it is the same Bagoas that was the trierarch, because the evidence is quite overwhelming that it is so. The only contrary argument has been to claim that a eunuch cannot possibly have risen to such heights under Alexander, which is quite fatuous.

There are fine details (a whole chapter) in my book on Alexander's Lovers.

And thus the text must be amended to accommodate a bed already made....

Poor method.