My thoughts about the sources

[Efstathios]

But i didnt say i own the truth.I am searching for the truth.Even if it is a vain research it is what keeps many people going on.The search of the truth and the love of knowledge.Whatever that is. I used Alexander's sexuality as an example for the sources because it has always been one of the most discussed subjects nowadays,a debate between researchers.It is not only what i had in mind though,but it would take a whole book to write all the arguments,those who say A and those who say B.I am aware of most.

What i wanted to say though is that writers should focuse only in aspects that would not provoke and start these kind of debates because without any hard facts that would put a closure to the matter ,it does much more harm than good. In the end who realy cares what Alexander did in his private life?What is important are his achievements and everything that concerns them.But even the sources are debating these matters.So it originally starts from there.Thousands of years ago. By the way, the quote that i used from Plutarh was from a greek book.I translated from it in english.As i am greek i have these books in the ancient greek language.Of course they all have the ancient text in the left page and modern greek translation in the right page.And because i know a little bit of ancient greek i can assure you that the modern greek translation is very accurate.And also my english one.I can put the ancient greek quote here though for anyone that can read it and has greek fonts.
Whatever quotes i make are this way.None is a copy paste from anywhere. You are right though i got a little bit carried away in the previous post out of the main subject of the sources.It is because i keep remembering that i was taught different things in school while learning ancient greek and reading the originals and now i see a whole other meaning that is given to these words that i once made grammatical and syntax analysis on them.like "love" and "lover" that i mentioned.That doesnt mean that i know the truth.But it is a good start i think of at least learning some things the way they really were.

I again surpassed the size of the post.Sorry,my posts are maybe getting painful for the eyes to read in a computer screen.I will stop now

[amyntoros]

I do understand that you feel you are seeking the truth, Efstathios, but you referred several times in your previous post to the "misinterpretation" of others - which implies that your own interpretation is the truth and that any opposing version is wrong. You said things like "when it so clear stated by the ancients" yet there are many, many people who disagree with you, myself among them. It isn't so clearly stated at all. That's what brought about my response. :-)Now, you said: "What I wanted to say though is that writers should focuse only in aspects that would not provoke and start these kind of debates because without any hard facts that would put a closure to the matter ,it does much more harm than good.In the end who realy cares what Alexander did in his private life? What is important are his achievements and everything that concerns them."I agree that his achievements are important, but people still want to know much more. What is the truth about the burning of Persepolis? Were politics behind his marriage to Roxane or was he truly in love? Did he believe that Philotas was guilty of plotting against him or was it just expediency? Why did he drag Betis around behind the chariot - an unusual episode of cruelty? Did he really believe he was a god? Why didn't he summon Olympias to Persia? Did he contribute in some part to Philip's murder? Were his actions justifiable in the death of Cleitus? How was it that Coenus died only a couple of days after opposing Alexander? And, yes, did he have a sexual relationship with Hephaistion?I've just pulled these questions out of memory to illustrate that there will always be debates "without any hard facts that can put closure to the matter" and most members do not think that they are harmful. People want to understand Alexander, to know what made him tick, to appreciate who he was as well as what he did. There will never be any definitive answers, but each individual forms his opinion and builds a mental image of his own Alexander. This, in part, is why forums such as Pothos exist, why we continue to re-examine the sources and to read modern biographies on Alexander - and why some people *are* interested in his sex life. :-)Best regards,Linda Ann

[Linda]

Curtius says Alexander had a sexual relationship with Bagoas - quite clearly. But things can be open to a variety of interpretations, and even the sources are biased, and I do think that the more you read about the culture of the times, then the more it helps to understand - language can be used in diffferent ways - a gesture in one culture can mean the opposite in another...And if people are interested in this subject, well, you just have to accept that. I see stories about Alexander which I think are wrong - in my interpretation of how he was. But I just don't read them. (Fiction, I mean). You may disapprove of the trivia, but you can't stop people talking about it. There is plenty of interest in the military aspects, but perhaps it is mainly "off internet" - peole playing military games etc.Like Amyntoros said - you don't own Alexander - no-one does.

[Efstathios]

"Like Amyntoros said - you don't own Alexander - no-one does." Very true.That is why we must be more careful when we are trying to "translate" some of his actions and behaviours. And as Ploutarch said in his "Symposium of the seven sages": Ancient greek: "'+ç +¦+»+¦ +¦+¦+»+¬+++¡ +» +++¦+++¡+»+¦,++ +ì+ƒ+¬+í+¦+++Ñ +¦+»+½++ +¦+¬+++¦+»+¦ +Ñ+¦+£+«+Ñ+¬ +¦+»+ƒ+¦ +¦+¦+£+ú+¼+í+¦+¬ +¬+í+¬ +¦+£+¦+í+¡ +í+¦+£+¦+Ñ+¬+í+¡,+Ñ+ƒ +¡+++¡ +Ñ+¦+ƒ +¦+¦+»+¦+¦+£+¦+»+¬+¦ +»+++¦+¦ +¬+í+¬ +¡+Ñ+í+¦+»+ƒ+¦ +½+++ú+»+¬ +++Ñ+¦+ñ+Ñ+ƒ+¦ +¦+¦+¡+¦+Ñ+¿+¥+¡+¦+Ñ+¦ +¥+++»+¦+¦+¬ +¦+ƒ+¦+¦+¬+¡." English translation: " The time Nicarhus as it passes by will bring the dark to the facts(in what is well known,in the truth) because even for things so recent other false things have been made up and people believe them." Imagine that if at the ancient times the facts were altered in a short time since they happened,how little do we now know about them.That is why we dig up asa back as we can to find the source,the fact.And even that is very very difficult. I too want to know what was happening in Alexander's mind when he burned Persepolis or who actually killed Philip and who else was in the plot,and many other things.
But when and if i ever write a book about my researches i would not present some things as facts,rather than show the different oppinions about them and which oppinion is stronger,which is weaker and why.This is what a researcher does.
Of course people are free to write everything they wish,this is the point of living in a free society.But their work is eventually "critisised" either positive or negative,or somewhere in the middle. Curtius was judged ,Arrian too, so was Plutarh and all the other writers.And we will be judged too by the next generations to come for our own work and our own estimates. Dont get me wrong,i like to hear all oppinions and arguments and i dont disregard anything.But i have one characteristic which can be good and bad toghether.I tend to dissagree in a conversation and present my own arguments even if i actually agree with the other person.And that sometimes for the sake of dialogue,or just to let the other person convince me in what i already believe with strongest arguments than those i already have.

[jan]

There is no doubt that many lies have been told about Alexander period just as today there are many lies told about Clinton, Bush, Tony Blair, and others. That is simply a fact of life. Nobody can know which are lies or which are truth about someone who lived such a long time past.But it occurred to me that perhaps one of the reasons that the men cheered when Alexander kissed Bagoas is because Alexander was a private man who never showed public displays of affection. At last, a time when he did, and what a rousing cheer it received. That does not prove that he had had a sexual relation with Bagoas nor does any statement by Curtius prove it either. Someone has said that nobody owns Alexander. I suspect that every history student of Alexander who has committed his time and study to learning of him realizes that as a subject, Alexander belongs only to those who use him for their own particular purpose.Ian Worthington did at least in his book make the statement that each had his or her own version of "my Alexander." I suspect all supposed owners of Alexander are kinmates to the blindmen who tried to describe the elephant, don't you?Of all the extant sources, I like Arrian's approach to this study the best.

[Linda]

Jan Curtius says, in relation to the affair of the Persian nobleman who was executed, that Bagoas influenced Aleander while he was making his body available to the king..pretty explicit. May just be gossip, of course, but he does say it.Linda

[Efstathios]

And that leads us back to the sources.I will agree with Jan. But how reliable are the sources anyway?Surely the most reliable would be that of Ptolemy and Aristovoulos who were much closer to Alexander both chronologically and literaly.Cleitarhus was in the same era and has been in Babylon when Alexander was also there but his sources were the soldiers,and maybe Callisthenes (who wrote until 329)and we presume that Callisthenes was against Alexander for some of his actions.This is partly good but we dont know how this affected his work.It is the same with the Atheneans.Many of them like Demosthenes hated Alexander and the Macedonian rulership so they could say lots of innapropriate things in order to diminish ALexander.And they did.So Cleitarhus although he was in the same era and city with Alexander's army was not an eye witness.And Alexander's soldiers were not eye witnesses in many important things.His soldiers could only say what they heard from Alexander's speeches,could say about the battles and from gossips they might have heard.Nothing more nothing less.
That leaves us with Ptolemy and Aristovoulos as the main sources that we can trust in most of the things they write.We dont have much of a choise anyway.In some occasions they might not be objective because they were close with Alexander and were his friends but except that they are very reliable.Therefore Arrian too who used these two sources to write his own work.And because Ptolemy's and Aristovoulos' work is lost,we find their work through Arrian. Curtius devoted his work in writing explicit details about Alexander.Maybe because he had as prototypes the roman emperors?Maybe because one of his sources was Cleitarhos,therefore the gossips of Alexander's soldiers?Maybe because he was the "gossips" writer of his era? Who knows?We cannot say with certainty.Maybe all that he wrote was truth. But the fact is that his sources were not the ideal ones.
By the way i would like to hear more about Curtius being re-examined as a more valid source from historians.I find this a little bit strange because only the fact that Curtius has many errors in his work make him a not valid source.Because that proves that his sources were not completely valid ,or even worse that he didnt care about the historical facts and events rather than writing the gossips and the juicy details...

[amyntoros]

Efstathios, you said: "That leaves us with Ptolemy and Aristovoulos as the main sources that we can trust in most of the things they write.We dont have much of a choise anyway.In some occasions they might not be objective because they were close with Alexander and were his friends but except that they are very reliable."
They're absolutely essential in some respects and are the basis for our knowledge of Alexander's campaigns, but the fact that they were *not* objective on all matters needs always to be considered. I previously recommended J. R. Hamilton's ATG for an excellent introductory chapter on the sources, both lost and extant. For example, Ptolemy was reticent about the more controversial aspects of Alexander's life and Aristobulus was something of an apologist. It's from him that we learn that Cleitus was entirely to blame for the brawl that led to his death (let's blame the victim, shall we?); that Philotas and Callisthenes were guilty of plotting against the king; that Alexander drank only to be companionable, etc.
As for Arrian, he didn't simply repeat what he found in Ptolemy and Aristobulus - his role was as an editor, and you are not always reading the "truth," but the truth as Arrian saw it. He had his own feelings about Alexander and his history reflects them. He says in his preface that there is no other figure "of whom there are more historians who are more contradictory of each other." He chose what to include and what to leave out, based on *his* own feelings. He thought that neither Aristobulus nor Ptolemy had anything to gain by not writing the truth, but he also thought that a king would not lie! Now really? And even if Ptolemy did not lie, it doesn't mean that he included everything there was to know about Alexander.
On to Cleitarchus: He wasn't just a "gossip," as you said, but a literary man and an historian. His may have been a more personal and sensational treatment of Alexander's life, but it doesn't necessarily follow that everything in it is inaccurate. One *can* write something sensationalist and it still be true, you know. (Look to Diodorus to better appreciate Cleitarchus - his history is a tolerably accurate reflection of Cleitarchus while being a comparatively favorable picture of Alexander.)

[amyntoros]

You also said in your post that "maybe Callisthenes (who wrote until 329)and we presume that Callisthenes was against Alexander for some of his actions .This is partly good but we dont know how this affected his work." Callisthenes was employed by Alexander when he wrote his history. Whatever his personal feelings towards Alexander may have been they could not have been reflected in his work. Who amongst us can actually believe that Alexander didn't have final approval on what was published, or that Callisthenes wrote willy-nilly whatever he liked and Alexander didn't see it before it was sent out? When you employ someone for the purpose of what is essentially Public Relations, you have full control over what is released. Yes, it's possible and even probable that everything in Callisthenes' history wasn't true, but it was surely how Alexander wished to be perceived.
You say that Aristobulus and Ptolemy may not be objective because they were close to Alexander, but that they are very reliable. But, by its very essence, a lack of objectivity is likely to make a person unreliable in some cases, especially if they feel an incident reflects upon themselves, their enemies, or the man whom, in Ptolemy's case, they had built a cult around. I'm not trying to discredit their writings, by the way, but what they chose to omit from their histories is as demonstrative of their own lack of objectivity as the information that they included. Because they didn't write about an incident doesn't mean it didn't happen. Because they didn't write about Alexander's personality, his foibles, or intimate personal relationships doesn't mean that he didn't have any! And even closeness to Alexander does not always make a writer "reliable." Have you examined Onesicritus in the sources? He was on campaign with Alexander and may even have written during the expedition or two to three years later, yet he had a very bad habit of mixing fact with obvious fiction. continued. . .

[amyntoros]

I have to ask this, but do you really want to make an objective analysis of the sources? Jan was being completely honest when she said that she likes Arrian's approach the best, and you agreed with her. That's fine and we all may have our preferences, but more seems to be involved than that. Are you looking to discredit Curtius simply because you don't want to believe some of the things he says? Just because he makes some errors does not mean that he or his sources should be disregarded completely. Errors are just that - errors.
In the end, all I can say is that a proper comparative study of the sources can not be done if the intent is to validate one's own feelings or prejudices. If the reason behind a study is simply to prove that something didn't happen, such as Alexander's relationship with Bagoas, then I'm afraid the approach is biased and any conclusions will be meaningless.
Best regards,Amyntoros

[jan]

The real point is that what Curtius is saying in his descriptions of personal behaviour is that he is repeating what may have been the gossip amongst the soldiers, not the facts as I do not believe that either Bagoas or Alexander would have disclosed that information publicly at all. Reason alone makes that obvious. However, because Bagoas had been known to have been King Darius's lover, it was probably presumed that when he was given to Alexander that Alexander behaved as King Darius had done. That is an assumption, not a fact.For Curtius to make a blank statement upon gossip and hearsay only makes it subject to his reader's questioning his judgment in stating it as authoratively correct. For one, I cannot believe that either Bagoas or Alexander would have been anything but discreet in their relationship, so to my mind, it is just common gossip.I understand the assumption, but I believe that the only incident of actual affection between them on record is the famous kissing scene which is distorted in every single record I have read of it. Again, each historian betrays his own judgment regarding that scene.However, much is made of Calanos's influence on Alexander as it is said that the two shared in their interest in the spiritual practices celebrated by each, and at his death, Alexander honored him with a great funeral pyre and worthy demise. All in all, again each extant source is exposed by the tales that they recite about Alexander, and it is interesting to note that Curtius appears to be the Kitty Kelly of the day. And that is what is known as unauthorized biography. Salaciousness sells big, doesn't it?

[Efstathios]

I mentioned in my last post that i dont disregard anything.Of course Ptolemy and Aristovoulos were not completely reliable.But they were in many important things like the description of the battles,the places the chronologies. Now if Ptolemy had not been objective about Alexander burning Persepolis or about Philotas ,yes i can understand that. But Curtius in my oppinion is the least reliable of all the other sources.Because he mentions things that we dont see in the other sources,plus he makes mistakes too.There might be a truth to these events though.But we cannot know that,as for example we know when the battle of Gaugameles happened because it is mentioned in many other sources. Of course you may say that "where there is smoke there is also fire".Yes maybe.We cannot know for sure though.That is the conclusion. About the incident with Bagoas kiss: Think of what Aristotles thought of the persians (he thought of them as being barbarians,and with the very negative meaning of this word,because of their customs (brother marying sister,father marying daughter,like Dareios' case).
Then think that Aristotles educated Alexander and the last admired him, that even when he was thousands of miles ago he wrote to him and send him materrials for his studies.
So we presume that Alexander was in some point influenced by Aristotles.
Do you see a contradiction here?And i dont mean about Alexander dressing in persian clothes,he did that in order to show to the people that all races can be equal if they have proper education ,and for other reasons too.I mean that if Alexander was influenced by Aristotles then he would have somewhat been opposed to the Persian ethos and mores.And by the way all greeks were because however open minded they were,the persians had extreme mores in comparison.
So there is a contradiction here because Bagoas was "serving" the persian customs,the customs of the barbarians.And i think that Alexander wouldnt use him too ,like Dareios used to, to show to the people that they can be all equal and stuff.
That "if" Alexander was really influenced by Aristotles.If... Just a thought though.

[amyntoros]

Hello Jan.
"I understand the assumption, but I believe that the only incident of actual affection
between them on record is the famous kissing scene which is distorted in every single record I have read of it. Again, each historian betrays his own judgment regarding that scene."
This is likely to remain a favorite of mine for a long time. So, the kissing scene is "distorted" in every single record that you have read of it? There are only two mentions of it in the ancient sources and they are both self evident. I presume you are talking about the "interpretation" of the event by modern historians, but the same thing applies to you. Your personal feelings influence your interpretation and you definitely put your own unique spin on the event.
Don't you ever wonder *why* the Macedonians at the theatre (there would have been many thousands of them along with others) applauded loudly and shouted to Alexander to kiss him? (And by the way, the version in Athenaeus says that Alexander first bent over and embraced Bagoas fondly and *then* the Macedonians yelled at him to kiss Bagoas again!) Kisses of any kind weren't handed out freely by Alexander, you know. Even the Persian kiss of greeting was much prized by the Macedonians as a couple of events illustrate, and that was a very different kiss from the one described in the theatre.
I think it's safe to say that the soldiers knew much more about the relationship than you want to believe. Alexander lived in a fishbowl and the only time he was alone was when he was in bed - and then not always. Arrian says the Syrian prophetess often watched over him while he slept. Now how do you think anyone knew that? Well, there were pages guarding his door and who knows how many other people who saw the comings and goings to Alexander's tent at different times. Alexander didn't *have* to disclose any information publicly about his relationships. If someone (anyone) spent the night with him, the army would have known. And call this gossip if you will, there are plenty of other incidences in all the histories - not just Curtius - that can only be known from what you call "gossip." That word, and the reference to Kitty Kelly, seems only to be used if the events we are discussing are considered salacious by one party. . . . continued

[amyntoros]

And to head off another potential argument - that of the "gossip" about Bagoas being false. If it were so, why would the people have reacted the way they did at the theatre? The common soldiers weren't exactly fond of Persians, so I doubt it was out of their own affection for Bagoas.
Is there anyone else who want's to step in here? I'm trying to keep this focused on criticism and analysis of the sources (and a little bit of common sense), and not necessarily on what I personally believe.
Best regards,
Amyntoros
P.S. to Efstathios. I tried to respond to you regarding Aristotle - and, unbelievably for me, it is a fairly short post - but Pothos won't accept it and says there is no room!