Rereading fire from heaven

[marcus]

Hi Andrew,

Something was nagging me last night after I sent my last reply to this, and I have spent some time this morning going through the sources. Here is what you said:

Actually, the historical Bagoas was quite important judging by the things we know he did:

1) Persuaded Alexander to forgive Nabarzanes for his involvement in the death of Darius
2) Escorted the delegation of emissaries of the Sacae in Sogdiana
3) Trierarch on the Indus river voyage (& therefore the most senior Persian at court)
4) Won the dancing contest in Carmania
5) Persuaded Alexander to move against the governor of Persia and took personal responsibility for his execution
6) Entertained the king to dinner in his own house in Ecbatana
7) Was one of only two male lovers attested for Alexander
Was included in a shortlist of the most important "flatterers" of Alexander by Plutarch

I also suspect that it is no coincidence that the so-called "Persianising" began just after Bagoas joined Alexander's retinue. It is likely on circumstantial grounds that Bagoas was the prime mover of this trend in Alexander's behaviour - hardly an inconsequential matter.

I have already replied regarding the persianising, and I repeat that I don't think we can ascribe Alexander's Medising to any particular influence from Bagoas.

Still, the point of this post is to look at the list you provide above, none of which points, in my book, to Bagoas being particularly important except as Alexander's lover/friend. In one instance only does Bagoas appear to have used any influence he might have had over Alexander, and that for nefarious ends - which episode actually says more about his lack of importance, at least in the eyes of other Persians. To whit:

1) Persuaded Alexander to forgive Nabarzanes for his involvement in the death of Darius.

This appears in Curtius 6.5.23. Can't argue with that - although Curtius is the only source that mentions it.

2) Escorted the delegation of emissaries of the Sacae in Sogdiana.

You will need to provide me with a source reference for this, as I have been through all the sources, major and minor, and not found Bagoas mentioned in connection with this event at all.

3) Trierarch on the Indus river voyage (& therefore the most senior Persian at court).

Yes, this is in Arrian Indica, if it is indeed the same Bagoas. All it actually tells us is that Bagoas could afford to pay for a ship.

4) Won the dancing contest in Carmania.

This is in Plutarch, Alexander 67.4 and is also mentioned in Athenaeus 13. 603 a – c. Neither point to Bagoas as being particularly important, except as Alexander’s lover.

5) Persuaded Alexander to move against the governor of Persia and took personal responsibility for his execution.

Mentioned only in Curtius 10.1.25-38, 42. It shows how important Bagoas thought he was, but very clearly doesn’t say much for what the other Persians thought of him!

6) Entertained the king to dinner in his own house in Ecbatana.

This is only mentioned in Aelian 3.23. If he was Alexander’s lover, and if Alexander was now on his downward spiral of drinking, it doesn’t necessarily follow that Bagoas was a particularly important person, except as a friend/lover to Alexander. After all, how many times is Medius mentioned in the sources outside those last days in Babylon?

(What has just struck me as interesting, is that Aelian says this happened in the month of Dius – which was in the autumn, and therefore isn’t likely to have happened in Babylon. Does this mean that this drinking spree was part of Alexander’s grief following the death of Hephaestion? In which case, the fact that he spends time with Bagoas is likely to be much more a reflection of Bagoas’ personal standing, and should not necessarily indicate any real political/military influence. No influence is being exercised, but merely provides Alexander with somewhere to eat and drink (and drink, and drink!). As I say above, what political influence do we know that Medius had, and yet Alexander spent a lot of time drinking at his house in the days before his collapse?)

7) Was one of only two male lovers attested for Alexander.

I won’t argue with this, but it doesn’t say much about Bagoas’ importance except as a lover/friend. From the point about Orxines above, at least some of the other Persians clearly viewed him as no more than a catamite, and didn't feel it necessary to flatter him. The fact that Bagoas had enough influence to get Alexander to execute him does indeed say much for the influence that he cast over Alexander by this time - if the story is to be believed as it is reported - but it is the only instance of Bagoas exerting such an influence on Alexander. (I don't count the pardon of Nabarzanes, because Alexander had himself only just met Bagoas and the circumstances, of Alexander being overwhelmed by the new 'lad', are different. He might well have pardoned Nabarzanes anyway.)

Was included in a shortlist of the most important "flatterers" of Alexander by Plutarch

This is in Plutarch Moralia 65 C-E. But Plutarch does not say his is one of Alexander’s “most important flatterers”, he just includes him in a list – a list which also includes others about whom we hear very little else, if anything, in the sources. The list doesn’t include Anaxarchus, whom I would say was far more “important” than the others, especially in the light of his actions after the death of Cleitus, and his attacks on Callisthenes.

So, I am not convinced of Bagoas' importance. I do need a source reference for the second point, though.

ATB

[Paralus]

However, my point has always been that I don't see why he shouldn't have been in the agema, all the same? I accept that there is no evidence for this, but as I have said elsewhere, there must be Persians who were inducted who were not as important as those you mentioned, so if Bagoas had become Alexander's favourite it is reasonable to suppose that Bagoas was, too. Doesn't mean he was an important figure in the court, however.

On balance I'd say not to the former but that is not to say it is impossible; just most unlikely that it is not noted in the sources.

As to the latter and an earlier suggestion that Bagoas was the "prime mover" behind Alexander's "Persianising", I'd suggest the far more consequential Iranian "resistance" and the assumption of the "upright tiara" by Bessus might have been more to the point.

You have quoted:

It follows that the two Pausaniases were both hypaspists and Diodoros' terminology is consistent with this as is the narrative. That Justin wants to make them kids should really not detain us from the absurdity of an eight year grudge;

I don't think I said this, did I?

Indeed you did not: an error in quotation on my part. It was Agesilaos in fact. I expect his one good leg swinging at my posterior poste haste...

[marcus]

As to the latter and an earlier suggestion that Bagoas was the "prime mover" behind Alexander's "Persianising", I'd suggest the far more consequential Iranian "resistance" and the assumption of the "upright tiara" by Bessus might have been more to the point.

Indeed.

I don't think I said this, did I?

Indeed you did not: an error in quotation on my part. It was Agesilaos in fact. I expect his one good leg swinging at my posterior poste haste...

I'm sure Agesilaos is too polite to swing at your posterior, Paralus.

ATB

[Taphoi]

Was included in a shortlist of the most important "flatterers" of Alexander by Plutarch

This is in Plutarch Moralia 65 C-E. But Plutarch does not say his is one of Alexander’s “most important flatterers”, he just includes him in a list – a list which also includes others about whom we hear very little else, if anything, in the sources. The list doesn’t include Anaxarchus, whom I would say was far more “important” than the others, especially in the light of his actions after the death of Cleitus, and his attacks on Callisthenes.

So, I am not convinced of Bagoas' importance. I do need a source reference for the second point, though.

The other four people in the list are quite important too. Two of them (Hagnon and Medius) were also Trierarchs. Medius was Alexander's host at the famous final party. Plutarch is specifically complaining about the degree of influence of these people over Alexander. Clearly, he considered Bagoas to have been notably influential. Who are we to contradict the judgement of someone who had much more information on the matter?

The one you cannot find is Curtius 7.9.19, where a youth who was unmanly and was Alexander's lover is referred to as "excipinon" (probably meaning Alexander's Greeter - i.e. at court). He escorts the Sacae, seemingly because he spoke Greek and Persian (they will only have known Persian). His charms are compared with those of Hephaistion. (The Euxenippos that you will find in your translations is unhistorical and is not mentioned in the manuscripts - he was invented by a modern editor called Hedicke to replace the manuscript reading of excipinon.)

A few errors and misconceptions need correcting in the posts responding on this:

1. Barsine joined Alexander after Issus long before Persianising began
2. The governor of Persia, Orxines, was probably guilty of serious crimes. He is implicated in the rifling of Cyrus' tomb, for example. It is only Curtius' spin that he was an innocent victim of Bagoas.
3. The fact that Bagoas spoke directly to Alexander on behalf of Nabarzanes shows that he did speak Greek and indeed it was perfectly normal for Persian Royal Eunuchs to be educated in such matters to serve in administrative and diplomatic posts. This is one of the reasons why he entered Alexander's service so smoothly and proved so influential.

For the rest, I am surprised that anyone would discount the significance of the emotional relationship between Bagoas and Alexander. People tend to be overwhelmingly influenced by such things in my experience and Curtius specifically complains that Bagoas exerted his influence in bed with Alexander.

Best wishes,

Andrew

[amyntoros]

For the rest, I am surprised that anyone would discount the significance of the emotional relationship between Bagoas and Alexander. People tend to be overwhelmingly influenced by such things in my experience and Curtius specifically complains that Bagoas exerted his influence in bed with Alexander.

Firstly, I do think that a person's strength of character dictates whether or not they are overwhelmingly influenced when in an emotional relationship, and one can't really issue a blanket statement covering such matters. As for Bagoas, well, IF one accepts that Bagoas also held a high ranking military position then one might be convinced of the importance of his political influence, as discussed in this thread. If one doesn’t accept the above and is left to examine the sources then the "important influence" on Alexander by Bagoas and the rest of the flatterers is shown in an extremely negative light. If one was inclined to believe that Alexander suffered a decline of character in his later years then, yes, one could read the sources as attributing some of that in part to the flatterers.

I'll post the quote from the Moralia but first I should say that this is from an old translation and it does not list Medius amongst these flatterers. I do, however, accept that one of the names should be read as Medius. (The reason Marcus and I use/used old translations wherever possible for our transcriptions is that we copied some considerable amount of text from the source books - the excerpts on Alexander and friends from the Moralia alone number some 30 pages. We've always offered these files to any member who may request them and we wanted them to be out of copyright so that they could be freely quoted on the internet.)

Plutarch, Moralia. Volume I. 65 C - E. (How to Tell a Flatterer from a Friend.)
This Medius was, if I may call him so, leader and skilled master of the choir of flatterers that danced attendance on Alexander, and were banded together against all good men. Now he urged them not to be afraid to assail and sting with their calumnies, pointing out that, even if the man who is stung succeeds in healing the wound, the scar of the calumny will still remain. In fact it was by such scars, or rather such gangrenes and cancers, that Alexander was consumed so that he destroyed Callisthenes, Parmenio, and Philotas, and put himself without reserve into the hands of men like Hagno, Bagoas, Agesias, and Demetrius, to be brought low, by submitting to be worshipped, bedecked and fantastically tricked out by them, after the manner of a barbaric idol. So great is the power wielded by giving gratification, and it is greatest, apparently, with those who seem to be the greatest personages.

What the above shows us is an extremely sycophantic group of men who used their "influence" to try and bring about the downfall of others, to cause them to lose favor in Alexander's eyes or worse. As far as Bagoas is concerned, the episode described in Curtius would be an example of such a self-serving event. And I believe the part which describes Alexander as being brought low, by submitting to be worshipped, bedecked and fantastically tricked out by them, after the manner of a barbaric idol is probably referencing (in part) the banquets in Babylon, as described in Athenaeus: (My italics)

Athenaeus Book XII. 537 d – 540 aSpeaking of Alexander the Great’s luxury, Ephippus of Olynthus in his book On the Death of Hephaestion and Alexander says that in the park there was erected for him a golden throne and couches with silver legs, on which he sat when transacting business in the company of his boon companions. And Nicobule says that during dinner every sort of contestant exerted their efforts to entertain the king, and that in the course of his last dinner Alexander in person acted from memory a scene from the Andromeda of Euripides, and pledging toasts in unmixed wine with zest compelled the others also to do likewise. Ephippus, again, says that Alexander also wore the sacred vestments at his dinner parties, at one time putting on the purple robe of Ammon, and thin slippers and horns just like the gods, at another time the costume of Artemis, which he often wore even in his chariot, wearing the Persian garb and showing above the shoulders the bow and hunting-spear of the goddess, while at still other times he was garbed in the costume of Hermes; on other occasions as a rule, and in every-day use, he wore a purple riding-cloak, a purple tunic with white stripes, and the Macedonian hat with the royal fillet; but on social occasions he wore the winged sandals and broad-brimmed hat on his head, and carried the caduceus in his hand; yet often, again, he bore the lion's skin and club in imitation of Heracles. What wonder that the Emperor Commodus of our time also had the club of Hercules lying beside him in his chariot with the lion’s skin spread out beneath him, and desired to be called Hercules, seeing that Alexander, Aristotle’s pupil, got himself up like so may gods, to say nothing of the goddess Artemis? Alexander sprinkled the very floor with valuable perfumes and scented wine. In his honour myrrh and other kinds of incense went up in smoke; a religious stillness and silence born of fear held fast all who were in his presence. For he was hot-tempered and murderous, reputed, in fact, to be melancholy-mad. At Ecbatana he arranged a festival in honour of Dionysus, everything being supplied at the feast with lavish expense, and Satrabates the satrap entertained all the troops. Many gathered to see the sight, says Ephippus; proclamations were made which were exceedingly boastful and more insolent than the usual Persian arrogance. For among the various proclamations made in particular, a custodian of munitions overstepped all the bounds of flattery and, in collusion with Alexander, he bade the herald proclaim that "Gorgus, the custodian of munitions, presented Alexander, son of Ammon, with three thousand gold pieces, and promised that whenever he should besiege Athens he would give him ten thousand complete suits of armour, the same number of catapults, and all other missiles besides, enough to prosecute the war."

None of this illustrates what I would consider a "notably influential" man in the political sense as Bagoas is being described in this thread. And it's interesting to note, as Marcus said, that Anaxarchus is not included in the list. I can only surmise that in Plutarch's opinion Anaxarchus' flattery was not used only to serve himself. Now, whether or not one believes in Alexander's decline is irrelevant to this particular debate. The Moralia quote is one of the few sources we have on Bagoas. His "importance", as shown in the excerpt, is as a contributor to Alexander's decline. Here Bagoas is numbered amongst the worst sycophants of the court, those who reduced Alexander in the eyes of Plutarch.

Best regards,

[marcus]

The other four people in the list are quite important too. Two of them (Hagnon and Medius) were also Trierarchs. Medius was Alexander's host at the famous final party. Plutarch is specifically complaining about the degree of influence of these people over Alexander. Clearly, he considered Bagoas to have been notably influential. Who are we to contradict the judgement of someone who had much more information on the matter?

And yet, for all the supposed importance, he is only mentioned twice in Curtius (see below regarding the "third" instance), once in Plutarch Alexander and once in Moralia, once (possibly) in Indica but not at all in Anabasis, and no more than a couple of other times in other sources - although I will concede that Athenaeus et al drew their material from other, lost sources.

The one you cannot find is Curtius 7.9.19, where a youth who was unmanly and was Alexander's lover is referred to as "excipinon" (probably meaning Alexander's Greeter - i.e. at court). He escorts the Sacae, seemingly because he spoke Greek and Persian (they will only have known Persian). His charms are compared with those of Hephaistion. (The Euxenippos that you will find in your translations is unhistorical and is not mentioned in the manuscripts - he was invented by a modern editor called Hedicke to replace the manuscript reading of excipinon.)

Now, you know as well as I do that this is not a source reference that says that Bagoas was the 'guide'. This reference can be used to infer that Bagoas was the guide, but no more than that. Neither of my translations say that Euxenippus (for want of a better name at the moment, but I agree with you about excipinon) was Alexander's lover, but refer to him as a "favourite" - but before you jump in, let me assure you that I will check the original Latin of Curtius in case both translations were drawing a veil. Still, Curtius does not say that it was Bagoas - and why would he not mention him by name as he had previously given him a name, and was to do so once more in his work?; so the most you can say is that Bagoas might have been the guide/emissary to the Sacae.

A few errors and misconceptions need correcting in the posts responding on this:

1. Barsine joined Alexander after Issus long before Persianising began
2. The governor of Persia, Orxines, was probably guilty of serious crimes. He is implicated in the rifling of Cyrus' tomb, for example. It is only Curtius' spin that he was an innocent victim of Bagoas.
3. The fact that Bagoas spoke directly to Alexander on behalf of Nabarzanes shows that he did speak Greek and indeed it was perfectly normal for Persian Royal Eunuchs to be educated in such matters to serve in administrative and diplomatic posts. This is one of the reasons why he entered Alexander's service so smoothly and proved so influential.

I know that these comments were directed at a variety of other posts, rather than specifically at things I've written, but ...

1. You are right, of course, that Barsine joined Alexander a good three years before the Persianising is recorded as happening. To be fair, however, the earlier posts referred to Artabazus as well, who did come to Alexander only shortly before Darius was killed. Between Gaugamela and Hyrcania Alexander picked up a number of other notable Persians; he then sought to legitimise his succession from Darius when Bessus adopted the tiara - the point made was that these events were undoubtedly more influential in occasioning the Persianising than the influence of one eunuch whom Alexander had only recently met.

2. Apart from Bagoas' defaming of Orxines to Alexander, what proof is there that he was guilty of other crimes? And didn't the implication that he was involved in the rifling of Cyrus' tomb come from Bagoas anyway, in order to secure his execution? We cannot be sure that his "innocence" was just Curtius' spin. (I'm not actually convinced of his innocence, but I'm not sure we have any contrary proof, unless I've missed something - and my books are upstairs and I'm too lazy to go up and get them at the moment ).

3. Agreed about speaking Greek. I still dispute the level of his "administrative and diplomatic" status, as there is nothing to suggest he had any - he had some influence over Alexander towards the end of Alexander's life, when things were going down the Swanee, yes, but only negative influence, as Amyntoros says, as far as we can see from the source material we have.

ATB

[agesilaos]

Alexais, I am a dolt it was ATTALLOS I meant, doh!

19 Benigne igitur exceptis Sacarum legatis comitem Elpiniconº dedit, adhuc admodum iuvenem, aetatis flore conciliatum sibi, qui cum specie corporis aequaret Hephaestionem, ei leporeº haud sane virili par non erat.

Here is the Latin for that Curtius passage from LacusCurtius, here the editor takes Elpinicon to be the name of the eunuch, not that i would put it beyond Curtius to confuse his Greek, he seems not to have been an 'A' scholar but even he would not have missed the name Bagoas had it been therein his source. Erant fortes ante Agamemnon; Bagoas was not the only eunuch at Court, one might wonder about the two who take down Alexander's will in the LdM.

I would not set too much store by Curtius' story of Bagoas' influence in condemning Orxines, in Arrian he is a rebel and part of the lesser or greater purge depending on how much of the Vulgate one admits. There are compositional reasons for Curtius to have Alexander swayed to kill an innocent; it reflects the story of Charidemos (the treatment of whose story by Diodoros shows how far Curtius would adapt his sources, assuming Diodoros to be a more faithful redactor). Alexander is the worse tyrant for being swayed by his catamite and showing no remorse. This may well have been in Kleitarchos whose work was clearly divided into two sections (viz, the two parts to Diodoros XVII and the fact that the manuscript of the Metz epitome is Liber II, the divisions being roughly coterminal). Kleitarchos had compositional reasons too of course.

Once he was free from the influence of Parmenion (much of which must remain putative) Alexander has the habit of being influenced to do just what he had already decided to, even before when one considers Thebes. The deleterious effect of courtiers on tyrants is a stock theme and of particular relevence to one who had survived Tiberius, Gaius AND Nero! But like Amyntoros, I think, I see Alexander as made of somewhat sterner stuff and significantly more self-confident.

Hephaistion should have exerted the greatest influence; and that does seem to have been a fear among the army cf. Pythagoras' divinations but HIS enemies seem to have suffered nothing at Alexander's hands, in fact , Alexander supports them against his favourite.

[Taphoi]

Alexais, I am a dolt it was ATTALLOS I meant, doh!

19 Benigne igitur exceptis Sacarum legatis comitem Elpiniconº dedit, adhuc admodum iuvenem, aetatis flore conciliatum sibi, qui cum specie corporis aequaret Hephaestionem, ei leporeº haud sane virili par non erat.

Here is the Latin for that Curtius passage from LacusCurtius, here the editor takes Elpinicon to be the name of the eunuch, not that i would put it beyond Curtius to confuse his Greek, he seems not to have been an 'A' scholar but even he would not have missed the name Bagoas had it been therein his source. Erant fortes ante Agamemnon; Bagoas was not the only eunuch at Court, one might wonder about the two who take down Alexander's will in the LdM.

Excipinon is correct!

excipinon.jpg (48.5 KiB) Viewed 5961 times

As you can see "Elpinicon" is a (wildly variant) emendation by an editor called "Foss". As I have said, the manuscript readings are "escipinon" in manuscript P and "excipinon" in all the other manuscripts (referred to by the Greek letter omega here.) This is from the Tusculum editorial edition of Curtius. I don't think anyone else has taken "Elpinicon" seriously.

In a context like this conciliatum (favourite) means a passive sexual partner. This is not a controversial point. It is rather like the modern Toy Boy, which also wouldn't literally suggest a sexual relationship, but you would laugh if anyone suggested it meant a plastic effigy of a young male.

aetatis flore means flower of youth. The passage says that excipinon is the equal of Hephaistion in handsomeness of body, but not in charm (lepore). This is a pun on the second meaning of lepore as a hare, which was a traditional gift from an active male sexual partner to a passive male sexual partner. In other words, Hephaistion was active in his relationship with Alexander, whilst Bagoas was passive. Finally, the passage notes that this was the case because Bagoas was "not at all manly" (haud sane virili)

There is no reason why an individual would be referred to by the same name/title at every point in Curtius' text. Alexander is called Alexander or rex interchangeably. Ochus is called Artaxerxes interchangeably in Diodorus. I am suggesting that Bagoas's title was rendered as excipinon by Curtius. This would mean the Greeter. Actually it's not far from excidinon, which could mean The Eunuch. There is nobody else that this person could be, given what Curtius says about him. Persians were given "rod-bearing" offices in the court shortly after Bagoas arrived according to Diodorus. It looks as though this explanation of Bagoas's role has dropped out of Curtius's text, or else our author forgot that he had cut this explanation from his source Cleitarchus.

Yes. The ancient sources are very negative about Bagoas's influence on Alexander. I would suggest that this is because they believed he had been instrumental in the Persianising and that they were probably right to think so. Greek and Roman writers were very negative about the Persianising, because (strangely enough) they believed themselves intrinsically superior to the barbarian Persians. Whether this is still seen as a negative thing by modern critics is an interesting issue.

Best wishes,

Andrewe

[athenas owl]

If the only surviving texts dealing with the United States in the late 90's to this day were say some tome from Ann Coulter and another by Jimmy Carter (I'm not remembering all the books, Carter hasn't necessarily written about American politics or George Bush or Obama or Clinton...

Well if the only books to survive and needs be relied on for "truth", or as Colbert would say "truthiness", were polictical books or whitewashing on the other hand..and no other, like actual records...our view of what happened would be very skewed. Would we be arguing whether Obama was really the son of Malcom X, and not a secret Muslim born in Kenya? Oh yes, that has been "suggested".

I am reminded of this every time I see the great arguments here and elsewhere regarding Alexander and his time. We are reading through the prejudices of the writers. Some very negative, some too positive. Of course they are all there is. But they are not that comprehensive, each surviving writer editing (at best sometimes) to suit their aims. I weep for the unedited information...what a wonderful thing it would be to find some actual court documents for the period. Or something like that.

Sorry for the off-topic comment.

[Paralus]

In a context like this conciliatum (favourite) means a passive sexual partner. This is not a controversial point. It is rather like the modern Toy Boy, which also wouldn't literally suggest a sexual relationship, but you would laugh if anyone suggested it meant a plastic effigy of a young male.

aetatis flore means flower of youth. The passage says that excipinon is the equal of Hephaistion in handsomeness of body, but not in charm (lepore). This is a pun on the second meaning of lepore as a hare, which was a traditional gift from an active male sexual partner to a passive male sexual partner. In other words, Hephaistion was active in his relationship with Alexander, whilst Bagoas was passive. Finally, the passage notes that this was the case because Bagoas was "not at all manly" (haud sane virili)

To quote a film only remotely associated with Egyptology: "This just keeps getting better and better".

The argument here – if this court funtionary is the Bagoas argued by Taphoi – is that this "effeminate" "toy boy" in the "flower of his youth" and the passive sexual boy-partner (eromenos) to the older Alexander (erastes) in 329 becomes, within three years, important and competent enough to command a warship should such be required.

This fellow hardly comes across as a budding Thrasybulus, Thrassyllus or Phormio! Then again in a thread that supposes the protection of the king in hand to hand combat by fourteen year old infantrymen and the appointment of an "adulescens" (youth) as one of the seven most influential nobles in the kingdom, that is no suprise.

Clearly if this is Bagoas the trierach then the title is certainly no more than honorific.

[agesilaos]

Thank you for the app. crit, I agree we should reject the editor's gloss, but equally I can't go for your 'greeter' scenario. Curtius translates Macedonian offices, viz the various 'custodes' 'armigeri' etc passim or 'Antiphanes scriba equitum' for grammateos hippon at VII i 15. I have not been able to search the whole text but that seems to be his practise. I am, however more than happy to accept your suggestion that the word should be excidinon; the error of a p for a d (we are talking a Latin manuscript before someone accuses me of not knowing my pi from my delta) seem quite simple and it would serve to designate Bagoas much better than a previously unmentioned office, which was surely Chares' in any case.

Nor is his further description as 'hardly a man' otiose in this case, it is emphatic. I have to agree with Paralus about the implications for his trierarchy but they are all financial. I wonder if Niarkhos has some hidden agenda against the other trierarchs?

[ruthaki]

I constantly refer back to this book as I loved the way she portrayed the characters and wrote the story. Historians and classical scholars need to remember though, that she is writing historical FICTION so not every single bit of info is necessarily going to fit what is recorded (and remember the histories were written hundreds of years afterwards anyway). Historical fiction writers can take liberties in their quest to develop characters and write a really compelling story. I have spent enough time in Greece haunting the alexander sites to know she has been fairly accurate with setting details although at the time she wrote that I think she believed Meiza was in a different location that it actually is. (Yes, I have also visited Mieza and it is quite astounding!) The one book of hers (her last) that I was very disappointed in because it is more 'documented' rather than developed, was Funeral Games. So much of the intrigue was left out and the characters are very shallow. That's the period of history I am writing about in Shadow of the Lion.