I have just finished reading this and I am afraid I would struggle to recommend it to anyone. There is a lot of erudition in it (by which I mean references to source texts etc), particularly in the Myth and Genesis sections, which I found interesting in terms of Alexander's background, but not particularly enlightening about Alexander. The Sexuality section though left me dissatisfied.
For example, there is a long, convoluted discussion about Hephaestion laying a wreath on Patroclus's tomb when Alexander laid a wreath on Achilles' tomb. The upshot appears to be that Ogden is saying that Hephaestion is saying to the observers 'you work it out' about his and Alexander's relationship. This is because, at the time, there was doubt about the nature of Achilles and Patroclus's relationship - Homer doesn't specify a sexual relationship, Aeschylus portrays Patroclus as the younger eromenos in The Myrmidons, whereas the prevalent view portrays Achilles as the younger. Yet Ogden doesn't examine why Hephaestion and Alexander would want, if indeed they did, to leave people guessing after making such a public declaration of their affection. He eventually seems to be opting for a co-eval relationship in which, presumably, there wasn't a dominant partner, but this is not made clear.
In the Bagoas section there is a throwaway remark that Bagoas is 'an owned slave'. Ogden fails to consider whether Bagoas actually was a slave. The vizier Bagoas, who was also a eunuch, who put Darius III on the throne, wasn't owned by anyone. He may once have been, as Alexander's may have been, but Ogden doesn't consider whether Alexander would have had a public relationship with a slave, having angrily rejected having beautiful boys bought for him.
There is also a section in which Ogden argues that Philinna, Arrhidaeus's mother, was a witch - in that she practiced spells and concocted potions - in a 'war of the witches' with Olympias. This may well have been true, but he doesn't examine Olympias's witch credentials, other than the alleged maiming of Arrhidaeus, and her Bacchic activities.
Finally, the Conclusion seems a little 'amateurish', being simply a synopsis of the individual chapters. I was expecting some kind of unifying conclusion and insight, but all that is offered is a couple of sentences stating that Alexander's sexual habits, rather than being unusual, mirrored Philip's. He seems to be saying that Alexander's noted 'restraint' was just smoke and mirrors, but again this isn't fully developed. There is more emphasis on the derivation and usage of the word 'gynnis' than there is on how it related to Alexander.
Myth, Genesis and Sexuality by Daniel Ogden
Moderator: pothos moderators
Re: Myth, Genesis and Sexuality by Daniel Ogden
Hi there,
The topic is interesting and certainly has been explored by several writers.
With the source material we have, I am amazed he was able to pull out of thin air a book.
With regards to sexuality, Philip had a fresh wedding with every campaign- Philinna of Larissa, mother of Arrhidaeus. There was a slander she was a prostitute however I have read in Heckel's book- that in all likelihood she was a woman of the Aleuadae,the Larissan aristocracy.
From early youth, as we know, despite Olympias intentions, he displayed little interest in sex and tries to avoid it- Olympias had sent the hetaira Callixena to Alexander to no avail. It was said also, that Apelles fell in love with the concubine of Alexander Pancaste.
His anger at being offered "handsome youths" as slaves and also after finding out that the Macedonians Damon and Timotheus, serving under Parmenion had "debauched" women he sent orders that if they were found guilty they were to be executed as wild animals certainly gives us a morally virtuous Alexander.
One really interesting comment in Renault's work is how somehow Alexander was able to channel his sexual energy into his other goals.
The seemingly chivalrous attitude towards women is unusual given the time he was living in and what models would he have had of such an attitude?
From his father?
With regards to genesis just one thing I found out recently a curiosity- (read it on the internet so mabye not 100% true) in 356 the temple of Artemis burns down, Alexander had offered to rebuild it but was not taken up on his offer. In 323 the temple is rebuilt or at least work is started on it.
Best regards
Dean
The topic is interesting and certainly has been explored by several writers.
With the source material we have, I am amazed he was able to pull out of thin air a book.
With regards to sexuality, Philip had a fresh wedding with every campaign- Philinna of Larissa, mother of Arrhidaeus. There was a slander she was a prostitute however I have read in Heckel's book- that in all likelihood she was a woman of the Aleuadae,the Larissan aristocracy.
From early youth, as we know, despite Olympias intentions, he displayed little interest in sex and tries to avoid it- Olympias had sent the hetaira Callixena to Alexander to no avail. It was said also, that Apelles fell in love with the concubine of Alexander Pancaste.
His anger at being offered "handsome youths" as slaves and also after finding out that the Macedonians Damon and Timotheus, serving under Parmenion had "debauched" women he sent orders that if they were found guilty they were to be executed as wild animals certainly gives us a morally virtuous Alexander.
One really interesting comment in Renault's work is how somehow Alexander was able to channel his sexual energy into his other goals.
The seemingly chivalrous attitude towards women is unusual given the time he was living in and what models would he have had of such an attitude?
From his father?
With regards to genesis just one thing I found out recently a curiosity- (read it on the internet so mabye not 100% true) in 356 the temple of Artemis burns down, Alexander had offered to rebuild it but was not taken up on his offer. In 323 the temple is rebuilt or at least work is started on it.
Best regards
Dean
carpe diem
Re: Myth, Genesis and Sexuality by Daniel Ogden
Hi,
All of this is very interesting, but it doesn't add a lot of insight into Alexander's character or motives.
As for Alexander's sexuality, Ogden appears to be making the point though he doesn't make it very cogently or forcefully, that Alexander was probably not as chaste as is sometimes made out, particularly once he has invaded Asia and we know more about his reign and life. His respect for women does appear to warrant comment as being different from his contemporaries, but Ogden doesn't discuss this, or where it might have derived from. Aristotle? Olympias? Romantic notions of honourable conduct? Concern for his reputation? Reluctance to engage with women? It is difficult to psychoanalyse Alexander, and we are not supposed to do it because of the time distance, bias of the sources etc, and Ogden doesn't attempt it, but it would have been satisfying for some comment on this.
The thing is, a lot of what Ogden quotes isn't directly about Alexander, or from the Alexander sources. A lot of the 'Myth' section for example, is about identifying which aspect of Zeus (Meilichios) is connected with Alexander's serpent-siring myth (which appears to have been in place within the first few years of Alexander's reign), as opposed to Ammon being the siring serpent (as the animal identified with Ammon was the ram), despite Nectanabo allegedly taking on the form of a serpent to have sex with Olympias, and the Agathos Daimon being associated with the founding of Alexandria (yes, I had never heard of this before either).With the source material we have, I am amazed he was able to pull out of thin air a book.
All of this is very interesting, but it doesn't add a lot of insight into Alexander's character or motives.
An interesting, throwaway comment hidden in the notes, is the Philinna appears to have been married before she married Philip, and had a son by her previous husband. This may be the garbled reason she was thought to be a prostitute, but it is a point Ogden fails to make.With regards to sexuality, Philip had a fresh wedding with every campaign- Philinna of Larissa, mother of Arrhidaeus. There was a slander she was a prostitute however I have read in Heckel's book- that in all likelihood she was a woman of the Aleuadae,the Larissan aristocracy.
As for Alexander's sexuality, Ogden appears to be making the point though he doesn't make it very cogently or forcefully, that Alexander was probably not as chaste as is sometimes made out, particularly once he has invaded Asia and we know more about his reign and life. His respect for women does appear to warrant comment as being different from his contemporaries, but Ogden doesn't discuss this, or where it might have derived from. Aristotle? Olympias? Romantic notions of honourable conduct? Concern for his reputation? Reluctance to engage with women? It is difficult to psychoanalyse Alexander, and we are not supposed to do it because of the time distance, bias of the sources etc, and Ogden doesn't attempt it, but it would have been satisfying for some comment on this.
This appears to be true. According to Strabo, the Ephesians refused Alexander's offer to rebuild the temple and rebuilt it at their own expense.With regards to genesis just one thing I found out recently a curiosity- (read it on the internet so mabye not 100% true) in 356 the temple of Artemis burns down, Alexander had offered to rebuild it but was not taken up on his offer. In 323 the temple is rebuilt or at least work is started on it.
Re: Myth, Genesis and Sexuality by Daniel Ogden
hi there,
With regards to genesis the story of Nectanebo paying a visit to Olympias to engender Alexander it is unusual as you say given the Siwah background.
Pharoah's were living gods in the eyes of their subjects and no doubt Alexander was keen to propagate this idea as that of his invencibility.
Hence the visit to Siwah, the coins minted and the slip of tongue by the priest at Siwah all point to divinity.
As we know, Alexander´s model par excellence was Achilles and, in the Iliad, we have scant information as to anything regarding his sexuality- BRISEIS Cilician princess. Daughter of the King of Lyrnessus was taken captive by him and was the cause of dispute between Agamemnon and himself. She mourned the death of Patroclus and Achilles. The abduction of Briseis mirrors the cause of the Trojan war- the carrying off of Helen.
Barsine mentioned in Plutarch and Justin in similiar style was captured and taken to Alexander. The death of Hephaestion also mirrors homerically how Achilles felt at the loss of Patroclus, perhaps a clear indication of how they felt towards each other.
Not sure if I will get round to reading the book subject of your review but the topic is fascinating
regards
Dean
With regards to genesis the story of Nectanebo paying a visit to Olympias to engender Alexander it is unusual as you say given the Siwah background.
Pharoah's were living gods in the eyes of their subjects and no doubt Alexander was keen to propagate this idea as that of his invencibility.
Hence the visit to Siwah, the coins minted and the slip of tongue by the priest at Siwah all point to divinity.
As we know, Alexander´s model par excellence was Achilles and, in the Iliad, we have scant information as to anything regarding his sexuality- BRISEIS Cilician princess. Daughter of the King of Lyrnessus was taken captive by him and was the cause of dispute between Agamemnon and himself. She mourned the death of Patroclus and Achilles. The abduction of Briseis mirrors the cause of the Trojan war- the carrying off of Helen.
Barsine mentioned in Plutarch and Justin in similiar style was captured and taken to Alexander. The death of Hephaestion also mirrors homerically how Achilles felt at the loss of Patroclus, perhaps a clear indication of how they felt towards each other.
Not sure if I will get round to reading the book subject of your review but the topic is fascinating
regards
Dean
carpe diem
Re: Myth, Genesis and Sexuality by Daniel Ogden
Ogden doesn't really discuss the implications of any of these themes. He is more interested in the origins of the themes, not their application to Alexander. For example, there is a lot on the founding Macedonian myths of Caranus, Perdiccas, Archelaus, Macedon and Midas, and nothing on how Alexander's contemporaries received his founding and siring mythology, though plenty on how the Successors (and their successors) appropriated Alexander's imagery and invented their own founding mythology.
If you are looking for background information on Alexander and his world, this book is worth reading, but not if you are looking for detailed discussions of Alexander himself.
If you are looking for background information on Alexander and his world, this book is worth reading, but not if you are looking for detailed discussions of Alexander himself.