Bagoas left behind in Hyrcania

[Arethusa33]

This is an argument from silence, when there is actually no silence. In addition to Arrian's mention of the trierarch, whose designation ho pharnoucheos is likely a corruption of Bagoas the Eunuch, there is also Curtius's mention (7.9.19) of an effeminate youth, who was Alexander's lover, in the context of Sogdiana and this too must be be Bagoas.

Furthermore, excluding Bagoas from India would not serve to undermine his influence, since he is independently cited in a shortlist of Alexander's greatest flatterers by Plutarch.

Best wishes,

Andrew

Hello Taphoi,

About Euxenippos :

Besides the fact that I believe that Bagoas was not with Alexander at that time, I don't think that Curtius would have talked that way about Bagoas. When Curtius talked about him he was always scornful. On the contrary, he didn't seem hostile to Euxenippos. He simply said that he was not as charming as Hephaistion because he was less manly than him.He also seemed to introduce the young man as if he was new to the story and as if he never had spoken of him before.

I disagree with you on the subject of Euxenippos /Bagoas, but nevertheless I find your book extremely interesting.I've read many books in French and in English about Alexander and your book brings really something new on the subject and I particularly liked the way you describe Alexander and Hephaistion's relationship.I don't like when people psychoanalize Alexander too much and you never do that.Oliver Stone did and the result was not good.

About the flatterers :

I think that Bagoas joined the band of flatterers Medius, Agnon, Agesias and Demetrius in the end of 325 BC. It seems that In the last years of his life Alexander was an easy prey for the flatterers. At least that's how Ephippus of Olynthus portrayed him but he was one of his detractors.

[Taphoi]

About Euxenippos :

There is no Euxenippos. It is absolutely certain that no such person ever existed. The name that you are reading in your version of Curtius is a modern emendation by an editor called Hedicke, who is famous for his exotic and unlikely tweaks to the manuscript texts of Curtius. Bardon and Yardley reject nearly all his emendations (though ironically not this one). The manuscripts read excipinon, which is a corrupt Latin noun. This has been discussed in another thread. It is possible that it is a corruption from excido meaning to castrate, so it might have started out as "the eunuch". It is also close to the verb excipio, meaning to welcome or greet, so it might have been some kind of reference to one of the Asiatic rod-bearers (chamberlains?) that Diodorus states that Alexander appointed to run his court shortly after Bagoas joined him.

The corruption of Βαγώας ὁ εὐνοῦχος to Βαγώας ὁ Φαρνούχεω does not seem very likely to me, nor indeed necessary, even eunuchs have fathers.

I think you got Βαγώας ὁ Φαρνούχεω from Perseus, but the Loeb has Βαγώας ὁ Φαρνούχεος. The text reaches us via a single manuscript, which may have come from a cursive text and it is easy for epsilon to be read as phi, since both letters are round with a bar through the middle. It is only too likely that some intermediary was surprised to read "the eunuch", where the preceding members of the list had had the names of their fathers, so he went and found a similar name, Pharnuches, elsewhere in Arrian's text (Anabasis 4.3.7) and used that.

It is true that Yardley chooses to translate ‘haud sane virile’ as ‘rather effeminate’ but it can also refer back to the ‘iuvenem aetatis flore’ and mean only that he was ‘hardly a grown man’ .So the effeminate youth disappears in a poof of grammar! Euxenippos above is merely an editors guess, the text is corrupt.

Haud sane virile is quite literally "not at all manly". Are you really saying that, if someone told you that a teenage youth that you knew was not at all manly, you would think they meant not grown up? The context is a comparison of the sexual charms of the youth and Hephaistion as Alexander's lovers

Best wishes,

Andrew

[Arethusa33]

There is no Euxenippos. It is absolutely certain that no such person ever existed. The name that you are reading in your version of Curtius is a modern emendation by an editor called Hedicke, who is famous for his exotic and unlikely tweaks to the manuscript texts of Curtius. Bardon and Yardley reject nearly all his emendations (though ironically not this one). The manuscripts read excipinon, which is a corrupt Latin noun. This has been discussed in another thread. It is possible that it is a corruption from excido meaning to castrate, so it might have started out as "the eunuch". It is also close to the verb excipio, meaning to welcome or greet, so it might have been some kind of reference to one of the Asiatic rod-bearers (chamberlains?) that Diodorus states that Alexander appointed to run his court shortly after Bagoas joined him.


Best wishes,

Andrew

But the possibility that Bagoas could have been left behind in Hyrcania by Alexander has never been discussed. Whatever be his name, this youth can't be Bagoas as he was not with Alexander at this time.

[Paralus]

It is only too likely that some intermediary was surprised to read "the eunuch", where the preceding members of the list had had the names of their fathers, so he went and found a similar name, Pharnuches, elsewhere in Arrian's text (Anabasis 4.3.7) and used that.

This is an argument for emendation, when there is actually no emendation required. Are you really saying that, if some intermediary read "Βαγώας ὁ εὐνοῦχος ", he would then, presuming that Arrian would not call him eunuch, go scour Arrian's other works for a patronymic remotely close? It is far, far more likely that, in a list of names and patronymics, the text actually read Βαγώας ὁ Φαρνούχεος and that the intermediary has faithfully transmitted Bagoas' father's name. This is hardly a case of the far better attested asthetairoi/pezhetairoi or of Antigonus' nephew Ptolemais or Polemais.

Good reasons must exist before a text is emended. Arguing that a word in the received text is incorrect because it does not suit one's argument is the world upside down. This is a new philosophy of historical method: "I claim therefore I emend".

[marcus]

There is no Euxenippos. It is absolutely certain that no such person ever existed.

You are a great fan of polemical statements, Andrew. You simply cannot say this. Your explanation might be right, but of one thing we can be absolutely certain: that we cannot say anything like this with absolute certainty.

You could say "I am absolutely certain ...", of course; but you cannot say "It is absolutely certain ...".

ATB

[Paralus]

There is no Euxenippos. It is absolutely certain that no such person ever existed.

You are a great fan of polemical statements, Andrew [...] You could say "I am absolutely certain ...", of course; but you cannot say "It is absolutely certain ...".

ATB

"I say therefore it is". Nothing unusual in a commentator who has, in the past, used his own commentary as a reference.

[spitamenes]

Hi Spitamenes,

I'm glad you like that theory and I like very much to discuss about Alexander. I admire him greatly and he is very popular here in France where the Alexander movie was a big success.

I can easily imagine Alexander setting his baggage on fire and saying goodbye to his beautiful eunuch even reluctantly because concerning the sacrifices he required of his men he was the first one to make them in all circumstances.

Hello Arethusa33,
sorry for the delay,.. so the movie was a success in France? That's great, especially considering the epic scale flop that it was here in the states. I guess we don't care much for "book learnin' " while were trying to enjoy our picture shows. That's OK though, I liked it enough to buy the DVD I guess. The last one Stone released actually has a scene where Bagoas speaks a line or two. He has a very strange accent though. Do eunuchs tongues go the same route as they're Willy's do?

[marcus]

He has a very strange accent though. Do eunuchs tongues go the same route as they're Willy's do?

If I remember correctly, the 'actor' playing Bagoas is a Spanish ballet dancer. He is not an actor - presumably Stone decided that having used so many disparate accents already, there was no point in trying to voice coach Bagoas any further!

ATB

[agesilaos]

In the interest of fairness I have to support Taphoi's assertion vis-a-vis Euxenippos. There is no manuscript authority for this name and it is an unlikely corruption; however excido does not exist either as discussed on the thread mentioned above, if it is bad practice to invent proper nouns it is just as bad to fabulise verbs. Paralus is quite right about the posited emendation eunouchos to Pharnoucho(s).

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 think, all reliant on one archetype some seemingly emended from another it should say in the intro of the first loeb volume. You seem confused over greek latter forms too, a lower case epsilon is unlikely to be mistaken for an upper case Phi the former having a horizontal line the latter a vertical one Εε and Φφ; scribal error is unlikely as is editorial substitution.

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.

[spitamenes]

He has a very strange accent though. Do eunuchs tongues go the same route as they're Willy's do?

If I remember correctly, the 'actor' playing Bagoas is a Spanish ballet dancer. He is not an actor - presumably Stone decided that having used so many disparate accents already, there was no point in trying to voice coach Bagoas any further!

ATB

Makes sense. Thanks for clearing that up. I never understood that. But I DID understand why the little scene was ultimately cut from the theatrical version. It seemed a bit awkward. And didn't really add anything to the plot. I heard he was looking for every spare second he could cut because of how much film he produced shooting the movie. I do know that after Stones massive fail, no film maker will touch Alexander's story with a ten foot pole. Which kinda sucks. I'd like to see a "LOTR" style trilogy with a younger director whose not afraid to take chances try and pull the story off. I do believe it's possible if it's done right. Better have the Tyre siege this time or Im making complaints! Did the old 60's film touch on the Tyre siege at all? I believe Im getting that movie for Christmas along with Mary Renault trilogy.

[Arethusa33]

There is no Euxenippos. It is absolutely certain that no such person ever existed.

You are a great fan of polemical statements, Andrew. You simply cannot say this. Your explanation might be right, but of one thing we can be absolutely certain: that we cannot say anything like this with absolute certainty.

You could say "I am absolutely certain ...", of course; but you cannot say "It is absolutely certain ...".

ATB

Very well said Marcus. It's because of the peremptory argument of Andrew that there was no Euxenippos, that I deliberately wrote in my previous post that Bagoas was not with Alexander at this time and not that I believe he was not with Alexander at this time. BUT I own Andrew's book "Alexander's lovers" and I don't regret buying it. In fact, I agree with all the theories developed in his book except his very own one, that Euxenippos is Bagoas and the more usually acknowledged one, that the trierarch Bagoas son of Pharnuches is the same person as Alexander's Bagoas.

Let's just hope that this discussion won't end in a dialogue of the deaf.

[Arethusa33]

Hello Arethusa33,
sorry for the delay,.. so the movie was a success in France? That's great, especially considering the epic scale flop that it was here in the states. I guess we don't care much for "book learnin' " while were trying to enjoy our picture shows. That's OK though, I liked it enough to buy the DVD I guess. The last one Stone released actually has a scene where Bagoas speaks a line or two. He has a very strange accent though. Do eunuchs tongues go the same route as they're Willy's do?

Hello Spitamenes,

I think that the flop of the movie in the states was mostly due to homophobia.Of course, the movie was far from being perfect but I'm grateful to Stone to have included Hephaistion in the story because in the 1956 version with Richard Burton he was not mentioned at all and Alexander was entirely "heterosexualized".Nevertheless I am a Richard Burton fan so I could enjoy the movie.

I bought the dvds of the theatrical version and the revisited one but as I think that the movie is too much influenced by Mary Renault's Persian Boy I didn't like at all the revisited version because Bagoas has a huge place in it and Hephaistion is almost erased and also because I don't imagine the eunuch that way. For me he was not so tall, more graceful, more Asian for the look and more perfidious for the character

[amyntoros]

In the interest of fairness I have to support Taphoi's assertion vis-a-vis Euxenippos. There is no manuscript authority for this name and it is an unlikely corruption; however excido does not exist either as discussed on the thread mentioned above, if it is bad practice to invent proper nouns it is just as bad to fabulise verbs. Paralus is quite right about the posited emendation eunouchos to Pharnoucho(s).

Hardly any sleep - up super early for the Black Friday sales - so my brain is even murkier than usual and I beg forgiveness for what may seem to be a silly question, but what does "There is no manuscript authority for this name ..." mean exactly?

Best regards,

[marcus]

... that Euxenippos is Bagoas and the more usually acknowledged one, that the tetriarch Bagoas son of Pharnuches is the same person as Alexander's Bagoas.

I do find it interesting that Euxenippos gets no mention in Heckel's Who's Who - where one would expect an entry even if only to dispute his existence. I wonder whether Heckel omitted him by accident, or whether he has entirely embraced the idea that he didn't exist. However, if it were the latter, I would have expected there to be an entry, if only to state that he didn't exist (or was Bagoas, or whatever). I am inclined towards it being an accident.

As for the trierarch being, or not being the eunuch Bagoas, I certainly have no opinion either way. I see no reason why it shouldn't be the eunuch; but I am aware that an identification has been disputed. I cannot remember why and on what grounds it has been disputed, however ... and as I'm just about to go away for the weekend I do not have the time to look into it further. I know that it is mentioned in Heckel, however, so perhaps someone else can check it while I'm away?

To use this post also to respond to Amyntoros - I too would like to know exactly what Agesilaos means. My understanding is that "no manuscript authority ..." means that the name doesn't appear in any manuscript ... but that, to me, presupposes that the appearance of Euxenippos is very clearly in a piece of corrupted text - but, as I haven't seen the actual manuscript, I can make no judgement on that.

ATB

[Taphoi]

what does "There is no manuscript authority for this name ..." mean exactly?

It means as Marcus says that the name does not appear in any manuscript of Curtius. What does appear in the manuscripts is not in dispute (by anybody ever). It is excipinon or escipinon (in various of the manuscripts). Anyone can find this noted in any critical edition of Curtius. The name Euxenippos is therefore a complete invention (by Hedicke, a 19th century editor of Curtius who should have known better than to invent a name where there is only a corrupted noun.) The adaptation of excido or excipio into some nounal form are just possibilities, but at least they are possibilities based on the contextual information rather than complete inventions. I would tend to agree that such possibilities should not be considered where there is any more concrete interpretation, but the corruption here is such that there is not. The word should properly be left italicised in its better manuscript form excipinon in modern texts.

That Arethusa has formed the view that Curtius introduces a new character here is completely based on Hedicke's invention. Arethusa is a victim of an unjustifiable scholarly distortion. The corrupted word is more credibly consistent with it being a reference to Bagoas. But my identification of the individual as Bagoas relies on the rest of the context as I have explained.
Best wishes,
Andrew

excido.jpg (135.21 KiB) Viewed 6056 times